Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/10/118

Gonela Chandramma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

T NARSIMULU

05 May 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 5^th day of May, 2011 

 

                                                    Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                     Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

      Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

 

C.C.NO. 118  Of   2010

 

Between:-

Gonela Chandramma W/o Pedda Nagaiah, aged 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.1-9-20/4, Sanjaynagar, New Gunj, Mahabubnagar.

                                                                … Complainant

 

And

The Manager, State Bank of India, Mahabubnagar Branch.

                                                                                                                                                    … Opposite Party

 

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 25-4-2011 in the presence of Sri T. Narsimhulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri V. Vignaneshwara Sharma, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

 

O R D E R

 (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to settle the account of complainant and to make payment of the dues, if any, with reference to fixed deposit and the loan account and to award compensation and also costs of the complaint.

 

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in a fixed deposit with the opposite party/Bank on 6-9-1999 and the opposite party having accepted the deposit accordingly issued F.C receipt.  Later due to her necessities the complainant availed loan of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party on 6-9-2002 by keeping the above F.D. Receipt as security.  Subsequently the complainant with an intention to clear off the loan account approached the opposite party several times and requested to settle the loan account with the fixed deposit and asked to pay the balance of amount if any to her.  But the opposite party quoting the reason of misplacing of records made the complainant to move around the bank several times but not settled the account so far.  Thereupon the complainant got issued a legal notice on 14-9-2010 to the opposite party calling for fulfilling the necessity but to no avail such acts on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the above said reliefs.

 

3. The opposite party filed counter admitting the complainant keeping with them an amount of Rs.10,000/- in F.D. and her  availing  loan of Rs.5,000/- denied the other material averments of the complaint and stating that  as the complainant  failed to approach this party either on the date of maturity of the said STDR, or on any subsequent day to close her loan account and the take the balance amount, or to renew the said STDR, this opposite party calculated  the interest on 6-9-2002 (i.e. the date of maturity of said STDR) on her loan amount  of Rs.5,000/- which interest comes to Rs. 2078/= and the total comes to Rs.7,078/- and after deducting the loan amount with accrued interest in maturity amount of said STDR (Rs.13,467=00 - Rs.7,078=00 = Rs.6,569=00) was kept in DEPOSIT AT CALL ACCOUNT. Which will not carry any interest as per Bank Rules and since then this part is ready to pay the said amount at any time on approach of the complainant.  But the complainant never approached this opposite party to receive the said amount.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of this opposite party.  And even now also this opposite party is ready to pay the said amount of Rs.6,569/- to the complainant.  Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of her claim filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3.  On the other hand, the opposite party filed his affidavit evidence and got no documents marked.

 

 5.  The points for determination now are: 

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

     (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by her? 

     (iii)  To what effect? 

 

6. The undisputed facts in the case are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in F.D. with the opposite party bank agreeing to repay the said amount with interest amounting to Rs.13,647/- on 6-9-2002 and on 12-12-2000 the complainant availed loan of Rs.5,000/- by keeping the said F.D. as security and agreed to pay the interest over the loan amount at the rate of 12.5% per annum as under Ex.A-1.  From that stage onwards the present dispute arose between both the parties.

 

 7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the contention of the complainant that having intended to clear off the loan account she approached the opposite party several times and requested to settle the loan account with the fixed deposit and asked to pay the balance of amount if any to her but the opposite party not settled the account on the ground that the records are misplaced.  The opposite party through their counter and affidavit evidence completely denied the said allegation.  If such is the situation then the burden lies on the complainant to establish her contention.  But the complainant except taking such a vague plea did not produce any proof in that regard.  Therefore in the absence of such proof we find that the contention raised by the complainant is not tenable.

 

8. It is the next contention of the complainant that when  the complainant did not comply her request, she got issued a legal notice to the opposite party as under Ex.A-3 demanding the opposite party to settle her account, the opposite party even after receiving the said legal notice and passing acknowledge as under Ex.A-2 also the opposite party not only failed to settle her account but also failed to give any reply even which amount to an admission and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.   It is no doubt true that admittedly the opposite party did not give any reply even to the complainant but in our view that itself alone is not sufficient unless and until the complainant contradicts the version of the opposite party.  As per the counter and the affidavit evidence of the opposite party their contention since beginning is that the complainant never approached them at any time even on the date of maturity of F.D.R. or any subsequent day to close her loan account and take the balance amount or to renew the said F.D.R., and that as on the date of the maturity of F.D.R. they have calculated the interest on the loan amount of Rs.5,000/- obtained by the complainant as per  the details  mentioned in their counter and affidavit evidence and after deducting  the loan amount with accrued interest from the maturity amount the said F.D.R. kept the balance amount of  Rs.6,569/- in deposit as call account which will not carry any interest as per bank rules  as per  the details mentioned in the counter and affidavit evidence  and since then they are ready to pay the said amount at any time on approached of the complainant, but the complainant never approached them to receive the said amount  and hence there is no deficiency of service on their party and even now  they are ready to pay the said amount of   Rs.6,569/- to the complainant.  If such is the defense of the opposite party since beginning the burden lies of the complainant to rebut the affidavit evidence of the opposite party, but absolutely the complainant  did not rebut the affidavit evidence of the opposite party in that regard either through her affidavit evidence or through any further evidence rebutting the version of the opposite party. In the absence of any such evidence rebutting the version of the opposite party it cannot be said that there is a deficiency of service  on the part of the opposite party as alleged by her.  Under the said circumstances we find that the mere non giving any reply by the opposite party to the legal notice got issued by her itself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore we find that there is no force in the contention of the complainant. As per the counter and affidavit evidence filed by it the opposite party is ready to pay the calculated balance amount of Rs.6,569/-.  There contention is that the complainant herself did not approach them to receive the said amount.  So in view of the said situation it can be said that a direction can be given to the opposite party to settle the account of the complainant and to make payment of the dues if any with reference to the fixed deposit and loan account. 

 

9. As far as the claim of the complainant with regard to the grant of compensation is concerned there is no pleading at all either in the complainant or the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant about the quantum and  any other details as to how she is entitled  for any such compensation. In the absence of any such pleading we find that the complainant is not entitled for the relief with regard to any compensation. So we hold that at the most the complainant is entitled to the extent of the relief No.1 sought for by her in the complaint as per the rules of the Bank. Both the points are answered accordingly.       

      

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the  opposite party to settle the account of the complainant and to make payment of the dues if any with reference to the fixed deposit and loan account as per Bank rules. In view of the facts and circumstances both the parties have bear their own costs.

 

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 5^th day of May, 2011.    

 

 

    I agree                                             I agree                                                        

 

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                      

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Party:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -

                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Loan Account. dt.12.12.2000.

Ex.A-2: Postal Acknowledgement.  

Ex.A-3: Copy of Legal Notice, dt.14.9.2010.

 

On behalf of OP.:                  

          - Nil -

                                                                                                                

                                                                                              

 

                                                                                  PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                    

 

Copy to:-

1. Sri T. Narsimhulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri V. Vignaneshwara Sharma, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party.