Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/426/2014

Mehaboobsab M Bagawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Hanchinal

05 Jan 2015

ORDER

: O R D E R :

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the F.D. amount, to pay Rs. 54,710/- towards the accrued interest with interest at the rate of 18% from 29/3/1999 till filing complaint, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the complaint with future interest at 18% on the award amount and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that the complainant is an agriculturist he has deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent on 30/4/1994 under F.D. receipt 273817. The said amount will be matured on 29/3/1999 with maturity amount of Rs.20,000/-. On 15/5/1994 the complainant obtained an agriculture loan of Rs.5,000/- on the said F.D. amount. The complainant repaid the loan amount with interest within 15 days from the barrowed date on 30/5/1994. The respondent had obtained the said F.D. certificate receipt as security towards the loan amount. After repayment of the loan on 30/5/1995 the complainant requested the respondent to return the original receipts. But the respondent bank told the said receipt will be returned within the week after it is traced. Thereafter the complainant approached the bank but the respondent bank has gave vague reply on 20/3/2001. Again the complainant approached the respondent and repeatedly requested to retuned the F.D. amount but one or other reasons the respondent refused to pay the same. The complainant had approached several time and requested the respondent to disburse the amount but not paid. At last the complainant submit an application on 9/4/2014 requesting to disburse the matured amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest on the F.D. receipts. For the application submitted on 9/4/2014 the respondent bank gave a endorsement but not disburse the deposit amount which clearly indicates the deficiency in service. Hence complainant filed the present complaint praying for the relief as sought. Along with the complainant the complainant filed I.A. u/s. 24A of C.P. Act to condone the delay of 4,796 days.

3.     In pursuance to notice issued from this forum the respondent appeared and filed detailed written version contending that the very complaint is false, frivolous concocted illegal and unreasonable and is against to the settled principal of law equity and good conscious and pray for dismissal of the complaint. Further the complainant admits the investment of Rs.10,000/- under F.D. by the complainant on 19/4/1994 for a period of 24 months and to be matured on 19/4/1996 with maturity amount of Rs.12,184/- at the rate of interest 10%  for 24 months and disputes the date of deposit, maturity value and maturity date as contended by the complainant in the complaint. Further, the respondent admits the avail of loan to a tune of Rs5,000/- by the complainant on 15/5/1994 based on the said deposit amount. While the respondent denies the repayment of the said amount by the complainant with interest within 15 days from the date of avail of the loan. Further denied the respondent manager had assured the complainant to returned the F.D. receipt after one week and contended the same is concocted. Further the respondent also denied the repeated approach and requests made by the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Further also denied after submission of the application on 9/4/2014 by the complainant the respondent bank manager did not cared for it. While the respondent submits the F.D. account is closed on 23/5/1996. Out of maturity amount of Rs.12,184/- a sum of Rs.6,250/- was deducted towards the loan due account and balance of Rs.5,934/- was paid to the complainant through bankers cheque. This was informed to the complainant after complainant submits application for repayment on 9/4/2014. Inspite of it the complainant filed the instant complaint after laps of 18 years and pray for dismissal of the complaint contending that there is no cause of action and complaint is barred by limitation and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.  On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as

claimed ?

1. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 

 

5. Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit relied on documents. Apart from argument both have filed notes of argument. Respondent relied on relevencies. Heard. Perused the records.

6.  Finding on points is as under.

1. Negatively
2. Negatively
3. As per order

: R E A S O N S :

 7.    Points 1 and 2: On going through the pleadings, evidence affidavit, coupled with documents there is no much dispute with regard to the fact the complainant had invested amount in the F.D. in the respondent bank.

 

8.     Now crux to be determined is whether respondent has committed deficiency in service. If so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

 

9.     Perusal of the pleading and evidence, the complainant haspleaded the facts in vague manner and the complainant himself is not definite with regard to the facts on what date he invested the amount in F.D., what will be maturity amount and what date the F.D. will be matured and what is the rate interest on the F.D. The respondent categorically denied all these facts contended by the complainant and reveals the proper position and correct picture of the F.D. Further, the case of the complainant is that he had availed the loan on the said F.D. amount and repaid the entire amount with interest within 15 days from the date of availed loan. It is also the case of the complainant is that while availing loan the respondent bank has accepted the original F.D. receipt and kept as security. After repayment of the loan amount the respondent bank did not return the original receipt by saying that the same is misplaced . Hence, he approached the respondent bank on several dates. Inspite of it the respondents bank went on postponing the same assuring that they will return the original receipt but not returned.

 

 

10.   But the respondent denied all these facts, except avail of loan on the F.D. amount and contended that the complainant did not repaid the loan amount.  Hence, the respondent bank after maturity of the F.D. on 19/4/1996 with maturity amount of Rs.12,184/- at the rate of 10 % interest on 23/5/1996 by deducting the loan due amount of Rs.6,250/- balance amount of Rs.5,934/- was paid to the complainant through bankers cheque. Since the transaction was of old one and as per the guidelines of the RBI at the end of 10 years of closure of the account of the complainant the respondent bank destroyed all the documents and produced ledger extract as per Ex.R-1 and on perusal of the Ex.R-1 it disclose that the respondent bank has round off the account of the complainant including others account whose account were closed. With regard to the destroying the records the respondent bank produced Xerox copy of the manual on general instructions in justification to destroyed the accounts of the complainant.

 

 

11.   The complainant has approached this forum for relief. Under those circumstances the burden on the complainant to establish his case with cogent evidence. When it is the definite case of the complainant that he has barrowed the loan on 15/5/1994 and repaid the same within the 15 days. The complainant could have produced the document in this respects but he has not produced any documents for repayment of the loan amount. So also, when complainant had repaid the loan amount much earlier in the year 1994 why the complainant waited till 9/4/2014 silently and approached this forum on 9/6/2014 i.e., after lapse nearly 18 years. At para 3 of the complaint as well as in evidence affidavit complainant had coated several dates contending that on those days he approached the respondent and insisted to return the original F.D. receipts and also for disbursement of the F.D. amount. For this the respondent opposed submitting that the complainant simply made allegations. The alleged date of approaches includes Sundays and holidays which are non working days of bank and argued by this it could be make out the complainant claim is false.

 

 

12.   Even otherwise looking into the circumstances a doubt will arise why the complainant slept over for all these days nearly for about 18 years is highly belated. Hence, the claim of the complainant is not sustainable even otherwise the respondent yet to pay. But perusal of the document R-1 as discussed supra disclose that the transaction pertaining to complainant has been closed much earlier on 23/5/1996 and as per guidelines of RBI Ex.R-2 the respondent bank has closed the account of the complainant after settlement. Apart from this fact and contentions the respondent bank also relied on citations in support of the case of the respondent. Gist of the cases reffered applied to this complaint the complaint is not sustainable. Accordingly complainant is not entitled for any reliefs much less the reliefs as sought.

 

13.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2  in Negative.

 

14.  Point.3: In view of the findings on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following:

:: O R D E R ::

        The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

 

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 5^th day of January 2015).

 

 

   Member                          Member                    President.

 

gm*