KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.159/04 JUDGMENT DATED.28.08.08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Baby Sam, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s.Rocklyn Trading Company, : APPELLANT Kollam. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura, R.S.Kalkura & G.S.Kalkura) Vs 1.The Manager, Union Bank of India, Beach Road, : RESPONDENTS Thiruvananthapuram Branch. 2. The Asst.General Manager, Union Bank of India, Thiruvananthpauram. (By Adv.Thomas.P.Jacob) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.19.12.03 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.198/02. The complaint in the said original petition was filed to get the maturity amount of Rs.6724.50/- covered by deposit reinvestment certificate. The opposite party filed version contending that the deposit amount of Rs.5000/- with interest accrued thereon was received by the complainant on 1.11.1991 by premature closure of the said account. Thus, the claim of the complainant was denied by the opposite parties. The forum below on an appreciation of evidence on record accepted the case of the opposite parties and thereby dismissed the complaint in OP.No.198/02. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He also relied on Ext.P2 and P3 documents and canvassed for the position that the appellant/complainant never received any amount covered by Ext.P2 deposit reinvestment certificate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He also relied on Exts.D1 and D2 documents and canvassed for the position that the claim is barred by limitation. Thus, the respondents/opposite parties requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the claim made by the appellant/complainant in OP.No.198/02 is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the respondents/opposite parties have succeed in establishing their case that the amount covered by Ext.P2 deposit reinvestment certificate was paid to the complainant by the premature closure of the account on 1.11.91? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated.19.12.03 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.198/02? 4.Point No:1: For the sake of convenience, we will refer the parties to this appeal according to their status before the forum below in OP.No.198/02. 5. Admittedly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- on 20.11.85 and the said deposit was effected by the virtue of Ext.P2 deposit reinvestment certificate. Issuance of Ext.P2 deposit reinvestment certificate is not disputed. The maturity value of the said certificate would come to Rs.6724.50/- and the due date was 20.11.92. Admittedly the complainant submitted Ext.D2 application requesting the first opposite party, the Manager, Union Bank of India, Kollam for issuances of duplicate of the deposit reinvestment certificate by stating that the original certificate was misplaced and could not be traced. There is no dispute that on getting of Ext.D2 request, the first opposite party issued Ext.P3 duplicate deposit reinvestment certificate. 6. It is the case of the opposite parties that after issuance of the duplicate reinvestment certificate the amount covered by that deposit certificate was paid to the complainant by way of premature closure. Alleged premature closure was on 1.11.1991. It is strange enough to note that the first opposite party, the bank manager paid the amount covered by reinvestment deposit certificate without getting the original deposit receipt or the duplicate deposit receipt. Had there been any such premature closure account and payment was effected on the basis of the premature closure, the first opposite party should have insisted to get the original deposit certificate or the duplicate certificate. No bank manager of ordinary prudence will disburse the amount without getting the original or duplicate deposit certificate. Moreover, it is the case of the opposite parties that the amount covered by the deposit certificate was paid to the complainant in cash. Admittedly the complainant was an account holder and he was having an effective account with the first opposite party bank. But the opposite party manager of the bank failed to pay the amount through the account. The said circumstances set out by the opposite parties cannot be believed for a movement. It is to be noted that the first opposite party manager, of the bank is an experienced person and he would not issue any amount covered by deposit receipt without getting deposit certificate or the duplicate certificate. It is highly impossible and improbable to believe that the first opposite party disbursed the amount without getting the original certificate or duplicate certificate, that too in cash without paying the amount through account. The said case of the first opposite party can only be treated as a cock and bull story. The payment of the amount to the complainant as contended by the opposite parties cannot be believed for a movement. 7. The forum has not properly appreciate the evidence on record especially, Ext.P2 deposit reinvestment certificate and Ext.P3 duplicate deposit reinvestment certificate produced from the side of the complainant. The forum below much relied on Ext.D1 deposit ledger and Ext.D2 request for issuance of duplicate certificate. The fact that the complainant requested for issuance of duplicate certificate is not disputed. It is the case of the complainant that he requested for the duplicate certificate because the original was misplaced and could not be traced. The mere fact that such request was made by the complainant for issuance of duplicate certificate cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the complainant received the amount covered by the deposit certificate. Ext.D1 is the copy of the deposit ledger maintained by the first opposite party bank. It is to be noted that the endorsement made at the bottom of the ledger is to the effect that the account closed on 1.11.91 premature. It is also made at the top of the deposit ledger that the duplicate receipt issued on 31.10.91. But there is nothing on record to show that the amount was paid to the complainant. No endorsement from the complainant has been received on the deposit ledger. It was very easy for the then manager of the first opposite party bank to make necessary entries or endorsements on the deposit ledger to suit his contentions. Ext.D1 ledger would give an indication that some foul play had been played by the then manager of the first opposite party bank. There is nothing in Ext.D1 ledger to infer that the amount was in fact paid to the complainant. Had there been such payment was effected, the original or duplicate deposit receipt should be with the first opposite party bank. The possession of the original deposit certificate and the duplicate certificate would speak volumes. It would make it crystal clear that the complainant was not given any amount covered by deposit reinvestment certificate. We have no hesitation to set aside the finding of the forum below that the amount covered by the deposit certificate was paid to the complainant. 8. The opposite parties would contend that the claim is barred by limitation. But on a perusal of P2 deposit reinvestment certificate would make it clear that the said amount covered by the certificate can be reinvested. No limitation is prescribed for getting the maturity value of the said certificate. Moreover, as far as the complainant is concerned, the cause of action for the complaint has arisen as and when the first opposite party repudiated the claim. The complainant issued a lawyer notice on 21.5.02 demanding the amount covered by the deposit certificate. Ext.P4 is copy of the lawyer notice dated.21.5.02. Ext.P5 is the reply to the said notice. It is as per Ext.P5 reply dt.29.5.02 the opposite party Bank repudiated the claim of the complainant. Thereby, the complainant filed the complaint in OP.No.198/02. So by virtue of section 24 (A) of the consumer protection Act, 1986 the claim is not barred by limitation. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated. 19.12.03 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.198/02 is set aside and the complaint in OP.No.198/02 is allowed. Thereby the respondents/opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.6724.50/- with interest from the date of complaint in OP.No.198/02. The complainant is also entitled to get his cost throughout. We fix the cost at Rs.1000/- M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER R.AV
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
