D.O.F:30/04/2021
D.O.O:25/08/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.87/2021
Dated this, the 25th day of August 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mohammed Ashraf M,
S/o Hassainar, Mayyala House,
Delampady Post,
Kasaragod Taluk & District .
(Adv: A. Gopalan Nair & Vinay M.E.) : Complainant
And
The Manager,
Delampady Service Co-opearative Bank,
No.C.1368, Delampady P.O.,
Kasaragod district – 671543.
(Adv: Shivashankar) : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that he is an account holder of opposite party bank and opposite party was the then managing director of the bank then. The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,08,250/- in the bank of opposite party bank on 16/05/2019 for a period of 12 months. The opposite party had assured that the bank will provide interest at the rate of 8% for the deposited amount, and opposite party had issued the receipt for the FD on 16/12/2019. As per the terms of the deposit the fixed deposit will be matured on 16/05/2020. The complainant had approached the opposite party to release the FD amount on 18/05/2020. The opposite party had expressed some difficulty to release the money and sought one month time to release the amount. When the complainant agreed for the same and approached the opposite party for the FD amount after one month then also, the opposite party again sought one month time to release the FD. The complainant returned back and again approached the opposite party after one month. But then also, opposite party failed to release the FD amount as assured. There was continuous default on the part of the opposite party in releasing the payment of the FD interest also. Fed up with the attitude of the opposite party, the complainant has caused to send a legal notice dated on 11/02/2021, calling upon the opposite party to release the FD deposit of Rs. 1,08,250/- with 8% interest till the date of release of the amount. In spite of the notice has been served by the opposite party on 15/02/2021, the complainant received the reply notice by opposite party admitting the fact that the fixed deposit amount of the complainant is matured but the opposite party is not in a position to release the amount due to their internal problem. The delay in releasing the amount from the opposite party caused severe mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant estimated his damages to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards mental agony.
The opposite party filed version, according to them this complaint is not maintainable and it is also false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. The averment made in para1 of the complaint is that the opposite party is current managing director of opposite party bank is against facts, false and denied here with. The opposite party had admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,08,250/- in opposite party bank on 16/12/2019 for a period of 12 months at the rate of 8% interest. The said deposit is matured on 16/05/2020 and the bank is liable to pay the said amount with interest. The opposite party denied the statement that the complainant had approached them many times for the release of the FD. But the opposite party had evaded from payment by seeking further time. The opposite party had received the lawyer notice dated 11/02/2021 of the complainant and correct reply was send to the said notice on 02/01/2021. The opposite party is only an employee as a secretary of the bank and has no independent power to take decision for the bank. The opposite party is doing day to day work of the bank as per the directions of the managing committee. The managing committee elected by the members of opposite party bank are the necessary parties to this complaint. Hence this complaint is not maintainable for non-jointer of necessary party. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency of service or willful negligence on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the copy of the receipt of the FD dated 16/12/2019. Ext. A2 is the legal notice. Ext. A3 is the postural receipt. Ext. A4 is the postural AD. Ext A5 is the reply notice. The main questions raised for consideration are,
- Whether there is any willful negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, question No. 1 to 3 can be discussed together. The case of the complainant is that he had deposited an amount of Rs.1,08,250/- as FD in opposite party bank for 12 months at 8% interest. On maturity of the FD, the opposite party evaded from releasing the amount by one or other reasons. Even after, causing to send a lawyer notice by the complainant also opposite party did not released the FD. Ext. A1 is the receipt of the FD. Ext. A2 is the lawyer notice send by the complainant to opposite party on 11/02/2021. Ext. A3 postal receipt of the Vidyanagar post office dated 12/02/2021 is produced here. Ext. A4 is the copy of the AD. Ext. A5 is the reply notice by opposite party. In Ext. A5 also, opposite party admits that the loan amount disbursed by the bank by some of the members has not been recovered due to covid 19 pandemic and the recovery process initiated is pending before the court. Therefore, it is finding difficulty to pay the amount to depositors on maturity. The bank assured through the notice to the complainant that the amount will be paid to depositors as soon as the amount is recovered from debtors. Ext. A5 clearly states that the amount is not released to the complainant so far. And the case of the complainant is true. Due to the recovery issue pending before the court, the opposite party has not been recovered the loan amount from debtors. Hence the bank is unable to release the FD of the depositors on maturity. Ext. A5 proves that the allegation of the complainant is true. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, the complainant suffered huge loss and severe mental agony. The complainant is entitled to get the FD amount with interest and cost from opposite party. The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- which is without any basis. This commission is of the view that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is entitled for the release of the FD with 8% interest from 16/05/2019 till payment with compensation and cost.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to release the FD amount of RS. 1,08,250/- with 8% interest from 16/05/2019 till payment with compensation of RS. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) along with a cost of RS. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Fixed deposit receipt
A2 – Lawyer Notice
A3 – Postal receipt
A4 – Copy of the AD
A5 – Reply notice
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Mohammed Ashraf M.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
