Date of filing : 31.10.2011
Date of disposal : 03.09.2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Monday, the 03rd day of September, 2012
C.C.No.166 /2011
Between:
1. M.R.Vimala W/o Ramajeneyulu.
2. M.Bharath Kumar S/o Ramanjeneyulu,
Minor, rep. by its Guardian mother Vimala,
Both are residents of State Bank Colony,
D.No.15/35, Dharmavaram,
Anantapur District. … Complainants
Vs.
1. The Manager,
Karur Vysya Bank Limited,
D.No.11/584, Thogate Street,
Dharmavaram,
Anantapur District.
2. Deputy General Manager,
Regional Office, D.No.230-2,
1st Floor, 5th Cross,
Mallewaram Road,
Bangalore.
3. Karur Vysya Bank Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
Registered Office: Erode Road,
Karur- 639002,
Tamilnadu State. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.R.K. Mohan and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the complainant and Sri K.L.N.Prasad, Advocate for the 1st Opposite Party and the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 called absent and set exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming to pay interest on deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- from 26.07.2007 to 15.06.2011 and to pay interest on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- from 04.07.2007 to 15.06.2011 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The first complainant is the mother of the second complainant who is a minor. There were two fixed deposits in the name of the second complainant bearing No.1402-516 and 1402-516, 6190 with the 1st opposite party Bank. Subsequently the said deposits were closed without any information to the complainants. In view of the closer of the deposits the complainants issued number of notices to the 1st opposite party. Finally the complainants have moved an application before Ombudsman against the 1st opposite party the said complaint was taken on file as 201011009003840. Subsequently as per instructions of Ombudsman the 1st opposite party had opened fresh deposits in the name of the second complainant with effect from 15.06.2011 for Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. The period of deposit is for 36 months. As per the version of the complainants the earlier deposits which were with the 1st opposite party were closed and no interest was paid for the said deposits. After issuing number of notices and persistent requests made by the complainants, the 1st opposite party issued new bonds in the name of the second complainant. The earlier bonds were dt.26.07.2007 and 04.07.2007 respectively. As per the complainants the earlier bonds should carry interest from the date of issue to till the date of latest issue of bonds, but the 1st opposite party failed to give credit of interest to the old deposit bonds from that date, while issuing the new deposit bonds. Hence, the complainants are entitled for interest from 26.07.2007 and 04.07.2007 respectively up to 15.06.2011. As the old bonds are not in the custody of the complainants they are not filed. As the 1st opposite party failed to pay interest to the complainants from 26.07.2007 and 04.07.2007 up to 15.06.2011 for the amounts of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively and the non-payment of the interest by the 1st opposite party is nothing about deficiency of service by the 1st opposite party. This complaint is filed claiming the interest on the previous deposits made by the complainants i.e., from 26.07.2007 and 04.07.2007 up to 15.06.2011 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter stating that the allegations made by the complainants are not true. The 1st opposite party submits that the alleged deposits were kept with the 1st opposite party bank by M/s Thriveni Silks a partnership firm under certain conditions and were returned to the said firm. Therefore, the said firm is a necessary party to resolve this complaint but the complainants deliberately omitted them with the sole intention to suppress the true facts of the case. Hence, this complaint is liable to dismissed for non-joinder of essential parties. The 1st opposite party submits that the complainants have deliberately omitted to inform various material facts having direct bearing on the statements and allegations made by them in this complaint and further misrepresented various facts. The 1st opposite party submits that neither of the complainants are customers of the 1st opposite party bank and they have not opened any fixed deposits with the 1st opposite party in the year 2007. They have not sent any application as required to open a fixed deposit or made any deposit of money with the 1st opposite party for creation of any fixed deposit. As such no lawful deposit was ever made by them with the 1st opposite party bank. Further the 1st opposite party submits that the complainants have not agreed to any terms and conditions of any deposit of money including deposit period or any rate of interest on the deposit. Hence, there is no privity of contract between the complainants and the 1st opposite party. In view of the above complainants have no right to make any claim of interest against the 1st opposite party under the law in absence of any such contractual obligation.
4. Further the 1st opposite party submits that the complainants very carefully do not make any statement in the complaint as to who had made the alleged deposits and what is the nature of the amounts alleged to have been deposited and what is the source of funds for the said deposits. The 1st opposite party further submits that one SriR.Ramanjaneyulu was a partner in a partnership firm called Triveni Silks and he died in the year 2007. Then the other partners of the said firm who were his brothers namely Mr. Amarnarayanan and M.K. Krishnakumar had tried to distribute their shares after the death of R. Ramanjaneyulu who was one of the partner. And in the process, the other partners Amarnarayanan and M.K.Krishnkumar have deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 27.06.2007 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.07.2007 by M.K.Krishna Kumar as a partner of M/s Triveni Silks. The 1st opposite party further submits that M/s Triveni Silks consists of partners namely 1. M.Venkatamma W/o M.Ramachandraiah 2.M.Amarnarayana S/o M.Ramachandraiah 3.M.Krishna Kumar S/o M.Rama Chandraiah and another firm M/s Amarnarayana Silks had partners namely 1.M.RAma Chandraiah2. M.Amarnarayana 3. M.Krishna Kumar. The partners 2 & 3 are common and they belong to one Hindu joint family. The partners 2 & 3 latter issued letters dt.22.08.2007 requesting to refund the deposit amount. Hence, the 1st opposite party bank took steps according to the instructions of the said letter.
5. The 1st opposite party further stated that the 1st complainant and the other two surviving partners of the above said firm had in fact compromised among themselves before the mediator and family elders and a compromise order was passed before Lok Adalat and no further disputes are now pending as per the orders of Lok Adalatdt.02.07.2007. The 1st opposite party submits that since they have settled of their dues towards the said share without retaining any right to claim any interest on such share they cannot claim interest on the same share in a roundabout manner from the 1st opposite party bank.
6. Further 1st opposite party submits that the 1st complainant herself had informed to the banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad that:
“I am very glad to inform you that the grievance has been duly redressed by the bank after a meeting held with the branch manager and other officials of the bank and Mr Amarnarayananand Mr. Krishna Mohan who had deposited the money earlier with the bank in the name of my minor son M.R. Bharat Kumar. Today, I have received the Xerox copies of two fixed deposit receipt (TTT) dated 15.06.2011 in the name of my minor son M.R. Bharath Kumar for Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively for a period of 36 months”.
I hereby confirm that I am convinced with the action taken by the bank and I am withdrawing my complaint made against the bank. I also confirm that I do not have any other or further claims whatsoever against the bank. Please treat that my complaint as withdrawn and closed.
7. The complainants deliberately suppressed of this important material facts in the complaint and raised further claims illegally against the 1st opposite party and it is after conciliation before banking Ombudsmand, the partners of M/s Thriveni Skills has issued cheque bearing No.40332 dt.15.06.2011 to issue a deposit receipt for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and on the same date another firm M/s Amarnarayana Silks, issued a cheque bearing No.593105 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Even at this stage the deposit was made with a condition that the amounts are to be paid directly to the 2nd complainant after he has attained his majority and not to 1st complainant.
8. The 1st opposite party further submits that the above said partnership firm had deposited two amounts of Rs.3,50,000/- on 27.07.2007 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.07.2007 with a promise that they will submit the required application form etc., duly signed to comply with the rules applicable for creation of fixed deposits they have also informed that the said amounts are the share of late Ramanjaneyulu but however no such document was submitted by the partners of the above firm. Latter the partners requested the bank to refund the said amount to them as they were unable to produce the required documents hence, the said deposits were credited into their current account. Therefore it is totally false to say that the deposit amounts are kept in the name of the 2nd complainant from 2007 to 2011 as alleged by the complainant. Hence, the question of payment of interest does not arise. The 1st opposite party further submits that the letter given by the 1st complainant estops her from claiming any other interest as claimed in the present case. In view of the letter given by the 1st complainant that she will not claim any interest, damages and mental agony etc. Moreover the said amount of deposits were credited to the current account of the partners of the 1st complainant husband and therefore the question of payment of interest on the deposit does not arise and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. If at all the complainants have got any grievance against their family members it is their head ache and the 1st opposite party has no liability for their disputes.
9. The opposite parties 2 & 3 called absent and set exparte.
10. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3?
ii) To what relief?
11. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the complainants have filed their evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B11documents.
12. Heard both sides
13. POINT NO 1:- The case of the complainants is with regard to interest amount on fixed deposits of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively which were deposited on 27.06.2007 and 04.07.2007 from the 1st opposite party as they were closed without their permission. As per the version of the complainants the interest on the above said fixed deposits from the date of deposit to the date of maturity are to be paid by the 1st opposite party, but inspite of repeated requests made by the complainants, the 1st opposite party did not respond. Hence, the complainants preferred this complaint.
14. But as per the version of the 1st opposite party neither of the complainants deposited any amount at any point of time with the 1st opposite party. The counsel for the 1stopposite party argued that the 1st complainant herein is the wife of the partner in the partnership firm M/s Thriveni Silks and M/s Amarnarayana Silks and the other partners are none other than his brothers and father. After the death of the Ramanjaneyulu in the year 2007 the other partners of the said firms who are his brothers namely Mr.Amaranarayana and Mr. Krishna Kumar made deposits in favour of his minor son as part of their settlement with regard to their properties. As a part of settlement a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was deposited by Mr. Amarnarayana on 27.06.2007 on behalf of the M/s Amaranarayana Skills and another deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited by Mr. Krishna Kumar a partner of M/s Thriveni Skills on 04.07.2007. The above said deposits were made in the name of the minor son as per the deposit receipts Ex.B4 and B6 documents which are cancelled deposit receipts. The above said two deposits were made as a part of their settlement. But subsequently as there was some dispute with regard to sharing both the partners Mr. Amaranayana and M.Krishna Kumar wrote a letter to the 1st opposite party on 22.08.2007 requesting the 1st opposite party to cancel the deposits which were made by them in favour of Bharath Kumar and to transfer the same into their respective current accounts and as per their instructions the 1st opposite party transferred the said amounts after canceling the fixed deposits.
15. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents Ex.B3 and B4 which are letters addressed to the 1st opposite party requesting to cancel the deposits and credit the same in to their account clearly shows that the 1st opposite party had rightly acted upon the request made by the depositors. Ex.B4 & B6 are the canceled deposit receipts which shows that the same were closed on 22.08.2007 itself. Hence the complainants argument is untenable. This shows that there is no deposit in the name of the second complainant from the year 2007.
16. Subsequently the 1st complainant complained to Ombudsman with regard to the fixed deposits made by the partners of the above said firms. In that context the 1st complainant wrote a letter to Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad stating that her grievance was redressed by the bank after holding a meeting with the Branch Manager of the bank and Mr. Amaranarayana and Mr. Krishna Mohan who have deposited the money earlier with the bank in the name of her son M.R.BharathKumar and that she had received the Xerox copies of two fixed deposit receipts dt.15.06.2011 in the name of her minor son M.R.Bharath Kumar for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively for a period of 36 months. And she also made a confirmation that she was convinced with the action taken by the bank and she was withdrawing the complaint made against the bank and further stated that she would not further make any claims in that regard and the same document is marked as Ex.B8 which clearly shows that the 1st complainant herself confirmed that she would not make any further claim with regard to the said deposits. But now again she filed this complaint stating that the 1st opposite party did not pay any interest towards the said fixed deposits from 2007 to 2011. This clearly shows that the 1st complainant has not come with true facts. As per the above observations we are of the view that as there is no deposit in favour of the second complainant since 2007 hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any interest to the complainant and hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service.
17. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 03rd day of September, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Photo copy letter dt.07.07.2011 issued by Banking Ombudsman R.B.I.
Hyderabad.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of deposit receipt No.258946 dt.15.06.2011 issued by 3rd opposite
party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of deposit receipt dt.258945 dt.15.06.2011 issued by 3rd opposite
party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A4 Office copy of the legal notice dt.18.07.2011 got issue by the complainant to the
opposite parties.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 Photo copy of paying slip of Karur Vysya Bank dt.27.06.2007 for Rs.3,50,000/-.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of paying slip of Karur Vysya Bank dt.27.06.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/-
Ex.B3 Letter dt.22.08.2007 issued by Amaranarayana Silks Dharmavaram to the
1st opposite party.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of deposit receipt No.0502894 dt.04.07.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/-
issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.B5 Letter dt.27.08.2007 issued by Thriveni Silks Dharmavaram to the 1st opposite
party.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of deposit receipt No.0502746 dt.27.06.2007 for Rs.3,50,000/-
issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B7 Photo copy of representation filed by the petitioner before District Legal Services
Authority, Anantapur.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of letter sent by the complainant to the Ombudsmen R.B.I,
Hyderabad.
Ex.B9 Photo copy of deed of partnership executed between M.Ramachandraiah and
two other on 08.12.2005.
Ex.B10 Photo copy of deed of partnership executed between M.Venkatamma and two
other on 08.12.2005.
Ex.B11 Statement of account relating to Thriveni Silks Dharamavaram issued by the
1st opposite party for period of 01.06.2011 to 31.08.2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
