This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sharanagouda against the Respondent Branch Manager Pragathi Gramin Bank, at Jalahalli Tq. Deodurga. The brief facts of the complaint which in Kannada are that: The complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- with the Respondent Bank under T.F.A.No. 10773A and it was matured on 13-02-07 on 26-02-07. He applied for withdrawal of the said amount with accrued interest thereon as he was in need of money for his medical treatment. But the Respondent Bank declined to release the same until the loan amount of his late father Amruthraya has been fully recovered and have made such an endorsement on his application. The F.D. amount had deposited by him, was out of his pensionery benefit and it has no concerned whatsoever with the loan amount due from his late father Amruthraya and the said loan raised by his father was by mortgaging land Sy.No- 45. His late father has got another son and Respondent Bank can adjust the loan amount of his late father by auction sale of the said Sy.No.45 and without doing so, the Respondent Bank has declined to release his F.D. amount which is required to meet out of his medical expenses and this attitude of the Respondent-Bank amounts to deficiency in service and caused mental torture agony & harassment. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for direction for release of the said F.D. amount under T.F.A.No. 10773A along with accrued interest thereon and awarding compensation for mental torture and harassment. 2. In-response to service of notice the Respondent Bank appeared through counsel and filed written-version contending that the complainant has concealed the true facts and has come up with false complaint. The complainant sought one time settlement by submitting a letter to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society (ARCS) Raichur. Meanwhile he has submitted a letter on 26-02-07 requesting for reduction of interest etc., on the loan availed by his late father and assured to repay it. Therefore the Respondent made an endorsement on the said application about non receipt of such application for settlement etc., It was also informed to him to submit an application directly to the Respondent for settlement in-order to send it to the Head office for approval etc., Accordingly the complainant and his brother have submitted an application also on 09-03-07 for settlement of dues. In-turn the Respondent sent the same to Head office and got approval for permitting the Respondent Bank to settle the claim for Rs. 21,300/- and as the loan was covered under State Act, an additional amount of 2.5% has to be paid. Thus the Head office permitted the Respondent to settle the loan for Rs. 21,900/- as one time settlement. This Respondent had filed recovery proceedings against the complainant and his brother for the loan availed by their late father before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society Raichur and accordingly the said Authority on 11-09-06 had issued a certificate of recovery. The complainant and his brother have got mutated their names in the Revenue Records in-respect of land Sy.No. 45/A of Lingadahalli village Tq. Deodurga after the death of their father. Thus they have succeeded to their father and to his property. The Record of Rights of the said land is produced. As the complainant has due to pay to the Respondent-Bank so it has rightly exercised its general lien over FDR. The complainant himself sought for settlement of the dues and now he cannot grumble against the same. The Respondent has taken proper steps for recovery of dues. The Respondent denies about the allegations made about his health etc., A story has been created for the purpose of his complaint. He cannot dictate the terms and modes for recovery. The liability is joint and several and so the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against them jointly and severally. Therefore in the present case as the amount is available for recovery, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the same. The Respondent is only interested in the recovery of the due amount and it is the Respondents right to recover the dues. Therefore complainant cannot restrain the Respondent from making the recovery by threatening about his health etc., The Respondent is ready to pay balance amount after deducting sum of Rs. 21,900/- as approved by the Head office if the complainant consents for settlement. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent Bank has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. In-rebuttal the Respondent has filed sworn-affidavit of its Manager by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (5) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service in not releasing his F.D. amount by the Respondent, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1) In the affirmative. 2) As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- in F.D. with the Respondent Bank under T.F.A. 10773-A which was matured on 13-02-07. Similarly the complainant has not disputed the loan availed by his late father Amruthraya by mortgaging their land Sy.No.45-A of Lingadhalli village. It is also not in dispute that his father has another son and after the death of their father the said land Sy.No. 45-A has been got mutated in the name of the complainant and his brother. The Respondent-Bank has produced Extract of Record of Rights of the said land Sy.No.45-A for the year 2006-07 which shows the mutation of this land in the name of complainant-Sharanagouda and his brother-Virupaxappa, the sons of Amuruthraya, as could be seen in column No. 9 & 12(2) of this R.T.C. Extract. 7. It is the case of the complainant that he had deposited the Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 50,000/- which received towards his retirement benefits and the loan transaction of his late father has no concerned with this F.D. amount and the Respondent-Bank can auction their mortgaged land and recover the loan dues of their father. The Respondent-Bank contended that the Respondent has filed loan recovery proceedings against the complainant and his brother for the loan availed by their father before Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society Raichur and accordingly the said Authority on 11-09-06 has issued certificate of recovery. In that proceedings the complainant sought one time settlement by submitting a letter to Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society Raichur and meanwhile he has submitted a letter to the Respondent-Bank on 26-02-07 requesting for reduction of interest etc., on the loan availed by his father and assured to repay the loan amount. The complainant and his brother have submitted an application in this regard on 09-03-07 for settlement of the dues which was sent to the Head office for approval and Head office approved the same and permitted the Respondent to settle the loan dues for Rs. 21,900/- including additional amount of 2.5% as one time settlement. It is also contended that complainant and his brother have got mutated their names in the Revenue Records in-respect of land Sy.No.45/A of Lingadhalli village after the death of their father. The complainant himself sought for settlement of the dues and now he cannot grumble and Respondent-Bank has rightly exercised its General lien over the F.D.R. and has taken proper steps for recovery of the dues. The allegations made about his health etc., is false story has been created for the purposes of his complaint. 8. Admittedly it is the complainant who had deposited Rs. 50,000/- under F.D.R. Further, it is late Amruthraya the father of complainant who had availed the loan by creating charge over land Sy.No.45/A of Lingadhalli village and he has got two sons namely the complainant and his brother Virupaxappa. The Record of Rights of the said land produced by the Respondent shows mutation of names of the complainant and his brother Virupaxappa. So, as rightly contended by the complainant, it is complainant and his brother Virupaxappa who are equally liable to pay the loan availed by their father. This support the contention of the Respondent-Bank that they have initiated recovery proceedings before Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society Raichur against the complainant and his brother for the loan availed by their father and the said Authority has issued certificate of recovery. Admittedly the late father of the complainant had availed the loan by creating charge in land Sy.No.45/A as security for the said land and after his death the names of complainant and his brother have been mutated to the said land and so there will be no hurdle for recovery of the loan dues of late Amruthrai even by auction sale of the said land as admitted by the complainant-himself. Under these circumstances we find substance in the contention of the complainant that the F.D. made by the complainant is of his individual nature having no concern with the loan transaction of his late father. Added to this the complainant has sought for release of the F.D. amount to meet out of his medical expenses and he has produced (3) Medical bills at Ex.P-5 issued by Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, Raichur and other (9) Medical bills at Ex.P-6 including Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital Raichur and Apollo Hospital Bangalore. So the contention of the Respondent-Bank that it has rightly exercised its General lien over the F.D.R. for not releasing the F.D. amount of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent-Bank and so Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 9. The complainant has sought for direction to release the F.D. amount of Rs. 50,000/- with its accrued interest there on along with compensation for his mental torture and agony. In-view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is entitled for the release of the F.D. amount with accrued interest along with global compensation of Rs. 1,000/- including cost. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent-Bank shall release the F.D. amount of Rs. 50,000/- under T.F.A. No. 10773/A with accrued interest thereon along with global compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. The Respondent-Bank shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum On 29-02-08.) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
