CC Filed on 07.02.2011
Disposed on 20.08.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th day of August 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLET. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 15/2011
Between:
Sri. H.R. Srinivas Rao, S/o. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Residing at No. 978, 1st Floor, 7th Cross, B.S.K. 1st Stage, 2nd Block, Bangalore – 560 050. (By Advocate Sri. Ananthakrishna Murthy) | ….Complainant |
V/S The Manager, Canara Bank, Chickballapur. (By Advocate Sri. N.G. Vasudev Murthy) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he had deposited Rs.10,000/- with the Opposite Party on 01.02.1994 for the period of one year and was issued a deposit receipt. It is stated that he had misplaced the original receipt while shifting his residence. By letter dated 06.01.2010 the complainant asked the Opposite Party to pay the maturity amount together with future interest. The Opposite Party has received that letter, but has not made payment. Hence there is deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed for directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- along with future interest. Hence totally Rs.50,000/- is claimed from this complaint.
2. The Opposite Party has filed his version and contended that on 01.02.1994 the complainant has made ‘Kamadenu Deposit’ of Rs.10,000/- for period of one year. From March 1998 the complainant approached the Opposite Party Bank and reported that he has lost the original deposit receipt and requested for issue of duplicate deposit receipt. On 14.03.1998 he executed the agreement of indemnity bond in favour of the Opposite Party undertaking that he will deliver the original deposit if and when it is found. Hence it is contended that he is not liable to pay any amount on the basis of the original bond as a duplicate receipt has been issued to him. It is further contended that after obtaining the duplicate receipt, the claim of the complainant was settled during the year 1998 and after lapse of 13 years he has filed this frivolous complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OPs?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative.
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1& 2: The Opposite Party has produced the indemnity bond executed by the complainant and the relevant clause of that reads as follows:
“The original of which has been lost and has not been pledged, transferred or assigned to any other person, the Depositor and the Indemnifiers hereby jointly and severally agree to indemnify and keep indemnified the Bank, their successors and assigns harmless against all loss, claims, costs, charges, expenses and consequences that may arise from their so issuing a duplicate Fixed Deposit Receipt/Kamadhenu Deposit Receipt and from wrongful dealing or encashment of the original FDR/KDR in any manner whatsoever or any other consequences connected with the said FDR/KDR or duplicate thereof and we, the said depositor and the Indemnifiers further undertake to deliver to the Bank the said original FDR/KDR, if and when found.”
The complainant has not disputed this indemnity bond. The contents of the indemnity bond clearly goes to show, that the complainant has undertaken to return the original bond if and when found and he has undertaken not to claim any amount on the original bond. Hence if the original bond was subsequently found the right of the complainant is only to return the bond to the Opposite Party and he cannot claim any amount under that original bond. On 21.06.2011 the complainant has specifically admitted before the Forum that the signature found on the indemnity bond produced by the Opposite Party, is his signature. Hence he is bound by that indemnity bond and he cannot proceed against the Opposite Party on the basis of the original fixed deposit receipt. If he has not taken the amount by producing the duplicate receipt, he will be entitled to take the amount, according to the Law. The Opposite Party is contending that the claim of the complainant was settled in the year 1998 itself, based on the duplicate bond. In the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party, it is specifically stated that during the year 1998 itself the account of the complainant was settled on the basis of the duplicate deposit receipt. Even though such contention is taken by the Opposite Party in his version and in his affidavit, the complainant has not denied it by filing any counter statement and he has not whispered about it in his affidavit. This goes to show that he has taken that amount on the basis of the duplicate receipt. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the Opposite Party and the complaint is frivolous and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 20th day of August 2011.
K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
