Karnataka

Tumkur

CC/119/2016

G.Lakshminarasimhaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The President,Sri.Vinayaka Souhardha Credit Co-Operative Society - Opp.Party(s)

Himanand D.C

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

C.C. filed on:19.09.2016

C.C. Disposed on:27.04.2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR

 

 

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF APRIL–2017

 

C.C. No. 119/2016

 

 

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL LLM., PRESIDENT,

SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINANT:-

 

1.       G.Lakshminarasimhaiah

          Aged about 43 years,

          S/o Gangaiah

          R/at Kodigenahalli Village & Post,

          Madhugiri Taluk – 572 127

 By Sri/Smt. Himanand D.C. –Advocate)

 

-V/s-

OPPOSITE PARTIES:-

 

1.       The President

          Sri. Vinayaka Souhardha Credit

          Co-Operative Society,

          Lakshmiram Building,

          Behind Hotel Dwaraka,

          M.G.Road, Tumakuru – 572 101

 

2.       The Secretary

          Sri. Vinayaka Souhardha Credit

          Co-Operative Society,

          Lakshmiram Building,

          Behind Hotel Dwaraka,

          M.G.Road, Tumkur – 572 101

 (By Sri./Smt. R. Premkumar -  Advocate)

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K. – PRESIDENT

The complainants have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prays to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.6,27,640/- towards interest, Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages/compensation for financial loss and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deem fit to grant,

The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

 

2.       The complainant is an Employee in BCD III CPWD, 3^rd Floor, Kendiriya Sadhan, Koramangala and he was working as an Executive Engineer.  The complainant submitted that he has entered into an agreement of sale with one Mr.R.Prabhakar Reddy with respect to site No.1231 situated at 8^th Block, Anjanapura Layout, Bangalore formed by BDA measuring East to West : 40’ North to Sought 60’ for a total consideration of Rs.72,00,000/- and out of that Rs.25,00,000/- was received by the complainant an advance amount on the date of agreement i.e. 15.06.2013.

          The complainant further submitted that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- in the OP/Bank on different dates as under:

Statement of Fixed Deposits by G.Lakshminarasimhaiah
Sl.No.	FDR No.	Amount	Beginning Date
1.	201	500000.00	17/06/2013
2.	202	500000.00	17/06/2013
3.	203	500000.00	17/06/2013
4.	204	300000.00	17/06/2013
5.	238	250000.00	28/04/2014
6.	239	250000.00	28/04/2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

The complainant further submitted that the purchaser of the above said site i.e. Mr.Prabhakar Reddy has not paid the remaining amount of sale consideration, hence the complainant issued a legal notice dated:17.03.2015. Mr.R.Prabhakar Reddy has given a reply Dt:02.05.2015 expressing his decision to cancel the agreement by taking back the advance amount.   Hence, the complainant had requested the Respondent/Bank to pay back the F.D. amount through his letter dated:01.12.2015.  But the OP has replied to the complainant through letter stating that one  Dr.A.Subramanyeshwara Rao, IPS, SP, CBI, ACB, Bangalore has instructed the OP that it is a confidential matter and they have asked for the details of the amount deposited by the complainant and his relatives.  Hence, the Ops have rejected the complainant’s request without having any order from the court or by any authority or by any investigating agency.

          The complainant further submitted that after receiving the reply from the Ops, the complainant sought for NOC by the said Investigation Officer through letter dated:02.02.2016.  The above said Investigation Officer has instructed the Ops to release the amount as they never ever asked to stop the payment.  Thereafter the OP/Bank had paid only principal amount of the F.D. on 02.05.2016 and 26.05.2016 of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- respectively.  The above said amount was transferred to the purchase of the said site through RTGS. 

          The complainant further submitted that the OP/Bank has not paid the entire interest accrued in respect of the above said deposit amount of Rs.7,58,000/- and compound interest of Rs.18,614.54. The complainant further submitted that, the Ops have paid Rs.1,48,974=00.  Hence, the complainant sought for remaining payment of interest pertaining to the F.D. through letter dated:02.07.2016 to the Ops, but the Ops have rejected to give details and sent a reply letter dated:11.07.2016 by threatening the complainant that they will inform the same to the Income Tax Department and the complainant’s higher authorities.

          The complainant further submitted that as per the Banking Rules and Regulations it is the duty of the Bank to share all the information pertaining to the customers.  But here in this case, they are directly ready to share the personal details with the higher officials who are no way related to the transaction and it is not the duty of the Banker to share the personal details to the officials who have never ever sought for the details.  On the other hand, they dare to deny the information sought by the complainant being tax payer to furnish the same before the income tax department. 

          The complainant further submitted that the Ops/Bank has refused to share the interest statement as they have not paid it properly.   The complainant further submitted that the sister of the complainant G.Ashwathamma was also invested in the OP/Bank.  Taking undue advantage of the above said investigating agency, the OP has not disbursed the F.D. amount to her sister G.Ashwathamma for a tune of Rs.9,00,000//- along with the accrued interest.

          The complainant further submitted the central government employees would always be cross checked by the investigating agencies with regard to the monetary transactions made by them.  The investigating agency has just sought for the details by taking the undue advantage of the same, the OP/Bank have planned to keep the complainant’s entire F.D. amount without paying interest which is against the banking rules, RBI regulations, RBI guidelines, Co-Operative Societies Act and principles of natural justice.  The complainant further submitted that due to the deficiency of service on the part of Ops, the complainant suffered mental agony.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.      

 

                             

3.       Upon service of notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed the version.  In the version the Ops submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine as the complaint involves substantial question of law.  The Ops submitted that the amount which was deposited by the complainant account an enquiry was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation wherein the concerned authorities had visited the office of the OP and had also conducted an enquiry wherein specific directions has been issued that no transaction should be transacted with the complainant in any form unless and until order are obtained from the investigation authority.  Hence, under the said circumstances the amount deposited by the complainant was kept in abeyance and only after receiving permission from the investigation authorities OP released the deposit amount to the complainant and the complainant has signed the deposit receipts that he has received the amount by raising no objections as full and final settlement.  When such being the case, the complainant filed this false complaint against the OPs in order to unjustly enrich himself. 

         

The Ops further submitted that there is no cause of action at all as the complainant availed the entire amount and the same has been received by the complainant with due acknowledgment.

          The OPs further that they have denied the averments as stated in Para 2 to 6 and Para 10 & 16 of the complaint in entirety as the same is not related to this OP in any way and the complainant has to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt by producing the relevant documents before the Hon’ble Forum.  Hence, the Ops pray for dismissal of the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.  

 

         

4.       Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence.  The complainant marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P21.  Heard the arguments.  Based on the above materials the following issues will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?

 

2. What Order?

 

 5.      Our answer to the above issues are as under:-

Issue No.1: In the affirmative

 

Issue No.2: As per final order below

 

REASONS

 

 

6.       On perusal of the pleadings, evidence and documents, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- with the OP on different dates as under:-

Statement of Fixed Deposits by G.Lakshminarasimhaiah
Sl. No.	FDR No.	Amount	Beginning Date
1.	201	500000.00	17/06/2013
2.	202	500000.00	17/06/2013
3.	203	500000.00	17/06/2013
4.	204	300000.00	17/06/2013
5.	238	250000.00	28/04/2014
6.	239	250000.00	28/04/2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is also an admitted fact that the Ops have paid the entire amount of Rs.23,00,000/- to the complainant.

 

7.       The contention of the complainant is that the Ops have not paid the interest amount on the F.D. amount deposited by the complainant on different dates.

 

8.       On contrary, the Ops submitted that Central Bureau of Investigation has given direction to the OP that no transaction should be transacted with the complainant.  Hence, the amount of the complainant was kept in abeyance.  The Ops further submitted that after receiving permission from the investigation authorities, the OP has released the deposit amount to the complainant and accordingly the complainant has signed on the deposit receipts by not raising any objections as full and final settlement.  Hence, there is no cause of action to file this complaint.  

 

                    

 

9.       The complainant has filed an application dated 21-11-2016 under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC and prayed to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the Ops to produce the following documents.

1. Specific direction issued by the CBI instructing on transaction should be transacted with the complainant stating unless until orders obtained from the investigating authority.
2. Permission letter issued from the investigating authority to release the deposit amount.
3. Instruction letter from the investigating authority to keep the complainant account in abeyance.  

 

10.     The Hon’ble Forum has allowed the above said application filed by the complainant, the Ops have not produced all the documents. But the Ops have produced one letter correspondence with central bureau of investigation dated 16-6-2015. It reads as under:

“For the purpose of certain secret verification, it is requested that the certified copy of statement of the 4 permanent deposit A/c. Nos.200, 201, 202 and 203 and certified copy of A/c. opening form may kindly be furnished to the bearer of this letter Shri.L.S.Muniraju, PC, CBI, ACB, Bangalore immediately. It is learnt that, the account is in the name of Shri.G.Lakshminarasimhaiah. Absolute secrecy may be maintained in this regard and this letter may be treated as very urgent and priority may be given to this letter”. 

In the said communication issued by the CBI, the CBI has not communicated the OP to freeze the account. Hence, the contention of the Ops stating that, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore has given direction to the Ops society that, no transaction should be transacted with the complainant until orders obtained from the CBI cannot be accepted. Hence, in the absence any documentary evidence, the oral statement of the Ops society cannot be accepted.

 

11.     Further, the Ops society submitted that, the complainant has signed on the deposit receipts that he has received the amount without raising any objection as full and final settlement. Hence, in this regard, the Ops society has not produced any documentary evidence to prove for his contention that, the complainant has received the FDs amount with full and final settlement. The oral contention of the Ops society cannot be accepted without any documentary evidence.

 

12.     Admittedly, the complainant has deposited the money in the FD receipts under FDs receipt nos.201, 202, 203, 204, 238 and 239 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000=00, Rs.5,00,000=00, Rs.5,00,000=00 and Rs.3,00,000=00 and Rs.2,50,000=00 and Rs.2,50,000=00 on 17-6-2013 and 28-4-2014 respectively, the complainant has deposited total sum of Rs.23,00,000=00 in the Ops society.

 

13.     Admittedly, on 2-5-2016 and 26-5-2016 the Ops society has paid only the principal amount of the FD receipts of Rs.15,00,000=00 and 8,00,000=00 respectively to the complainant.  The Ops society has not paid the interest accrued with respect to the above said FD receipts to the complainant. But the Ops have illegally kept the complainant’s money in the abeyance; it is bounden duty of the Ops society to pay the accrued interest @ 10% per annum to the complainant as per fixed deposit receipts. Hence, non performance on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Further, the complainant stated that, the Ops have paid interest amount of Rs.1,48,974=00 to the complainant. The complainant further submitted that, he is entitled for total interest of 7,58,000=00, the same has not been disputed by the Ops. The claim of the complainant has been accepted by the OP.  Hence, it is just and proper to direct the Ops to pay the balance amount of interest by deducting Rs.1,48,974=00 which is already been paid to the complainant. Hence, it is just and proper to direct the OPs No.1 and 2 to pay FD receipts amount interest @ 10% p.a. by deducting Rs.1,48,974=0 from the date of issue of FD receipt till the date of principal amount paid to the complainant, failing which, the Ops shall pay interest @ 12% per annum on the payable amount from the date of this complaint till realization. Further, the OP No.1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000=00 and Rs.5,000=00 towards litigation cost to the complainant. Accordingly, we answer this point in the affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reason, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

        The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.

 

          The OP Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay FD amount interest @ 10% p.a. by deducting Rs.1,48,974=00 from the date of issue of FD receipt till the date of principal amount paid to the complainant, failing which, the Ops shall pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the payable amount from the date of this complaint till the date of realization.

 

            The OP Nos.1 and 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000=00 and Rs.5,000=00 toward cost of litigation to the complainant respectively.  

 

            This order is to be complied by the OP Nos.1 and 2 within 45 days from the date of this order.

 

Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 27st day of April 2017)

 

 

 

                                                         

LADY MEMBER                          PRESIDENT