Karnataka

Bagalkot

CC/164/2010

Javijayalaxmi W/o Shivappa Galli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The SBI - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2010

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM, BAGALKOT.

Date of filing:29-09-2010

Date of Order: 27-01-2011

Consumer Complaint No.164/2010

PRESENT

01) Shri. A.M.Pattar, B.A.LL.B. (Spl)

                 District Judge(R)                                                    President…

02) Smt.Girija.R.Adakenavar, B.A.                                                  Lady Member…

COMPLAINANT

1. Vijayalaxmi W/o Shivappa Gali,

Age:Major, Bagalkot

Present Address R/o Bilagi,

Dist: Bagalkot.

                                    (By Sri. S.M. Deshetti, Advocate)

                         V/s

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. The State Bank of India,

Navanagar Branch, Bagalkot.

                                                                      (By Sri.M.S.Biradar Patil, Advocate)

O R D E R

Sri.A.M.Pattar, Dist. Judge (Retd), President.

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the Opposite Party (in short the ‘Op’) claiming the F.D amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings along with 18% of interest etc.

           2. The facts of the case in brief are that; the complainant on 6.12.2004 deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the Op Bank under instruction of keeping the same in STDR in the name of her minor daughter Kum.Banashankari Shivappa Gali for which the Op issued four certificates under No.0445021, 0445022, 0555023, 0445024 of Rs.25,000/- each the maturity date of which was 6.12.2009.  After the maturity date the complainant on 7.1.2010 went to Op Bank and requested to pay the amount and at that time she came to know that the deposits were not made under special term deposit (S.T.D.R).  On the other hand they were made as Term Deposit Receipts (T.D.R) and the interest accrued on the said F.D were transferred to the account of some other persons.  Surprised by this act of the Op the complainant again went and requested to pay the amount as per the terms of the deposit.  But the Op has not paid the amount and OP has replied vaguely to her notice dated 9.7.2010.  This act of the Op is nothing but clear negligence and deficiency in service which has caused financial loss and physical strain, mental agony to her etc., and hence has prayed for allowing the complaint.

           3.  The Op has appeared through the counsel and opposed the claim of the complainant by filing detailed written version wherein it has admitted the fact of the complainant depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in T.D.R but not under S.T.D.R and issuance of four certificates of Rs.25,000/- each and it has also admitted the date of issuance of the certificates and maturity date.  But further stated that as per the instructions of the complainant the monthly interest on the said deposits was credited to the Savings Account of her close relatives namely Sarada B. Gali and Mahesh B. Gali bearing Account No.10502817892 and accordingly the interest for the period of five years has been credited to the said account and this has been done as per the instructions of the complainant and now she is estoped from contending that the same was wrongly deposited in the third party account and the complaint is not maintainable without impleading her minor daughter as a party and also bringing on record, the said two persons namely Sharada and Mahesh and the complainant is not consumer and no deficiency in service has been caused by the Op etc., and hence has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

           4.  Both the parties have filed affidavits in support of their respective cases.  Eight documents are marked for the complainant as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and eleven documents are marked for the Op as Ex.Op1 to Ex.Op11.

           5.  Since the complainant and her counsel has not at all turned up at the time of arguments, her side argument is taken as nil.  However the learned counsel for the Op has advanced his oral arguments.

           6.  Now the points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as is sought for?
2. What order?

Answers to the above Points:-

1)  Partly Affirmative.

                             2)  As per final order

R E A S O N S

            7.  POINT NO.1:- The fact that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in OP Bank in four Fixed Deposit on 6.12.2004 is not in dispute.  It is the contention of the complainant that she had requested the OP Bank to make the deposit as a special term deposit receipt (S.T.D.R) but the same was deposited in term deposit receipt (T.D.R) by the Op Bank in the name of her minor daughter Kum.Banashankari.  The original four F.D. are produced in this case which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and they are of Rs.25,000/- each totally amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is also the contention of the Op Bank that the said deposit was made by the complainant as T.D.R whether it is S.T.D.R or T.D.R is not material but any how Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 shows that these certificates are S.T.D.R’s.  After receiving the amount, the Op has promised to pay the amount with 6.25% of interest, after 60 months from the date of deposit which was due on 6.12.2009 and it is also an admitted fact that the maturity date of the F.D has already been over.  When a Bank invites deposits from the public promising to pay the same with interest after certain period it is bound to pay the same after the said statutory period.  Non payment of the amount after that period amounts to deficiency in service.  It is an admitted fact that the due date of the four F.D has already been over on 6.12.2009 and the complainant has alleged that after the due date on 7.1.2010 she went to Op Bank and requested to pay the amount and at that time she came to know that the interest accrued on the said deposits was credited to the account of some other persons.  The Op has specifically taken a contention that at the time of making deposit the complainant had requested the Bank to deposit the interest earned on the said F.D’s to the account of her close relatives namely Sharada B. Gali and Mahesh B. Gali Account bearing No.10502817892 and accordingly the interest has already been deposited in the account of said Sharada and Mahesh.  This contention of the Op has been disputed by the complainant.  When it was ask to the learned counsel for the Op as to whether the said instruction was in writing or oral one, he submitted that it was oral one.  We fail to understand as to how the Bank particularly the Op Bank which is owned by Central Government acts on oral instructions of the customers particularly in such matters.  The Bank was not at all supposed to act on any oral instructions of the depositors particularly the complainant on this case.  First of all there are no materials to show that the complainant had made request to transfer the interest on the F.D’s to the account of Sharada and Mahesh.  If at all she had made any oral request in this regard before the Officers of the Op Bank then it was for the Op Bank to file affidavit of such persons before whom the alleged instruction was passed on by the complainant.  The Op has not assigned any reasons for not filing the affidavit of the said Officer who accepted the deposits of the complainant on that day.  Even if there were any such oral instructions, the Bank is not justified in acting upon such oral instructions.  Therefore, the Bank i.e. Op Bank is bound to return the F.D amount along with agreed rate of interest through-out.  If any mistake is committed by its Officers then the Op Bank is at liberty to proceed against such Officers for recovery of the interest which the F.D’s had earned belonging to the complainant. 

            8.  The Op has taken a contention that the amount in question was deposited in the name of minor daughter of the complainant, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable in her individual capacity.  It may be noted that the deposit in question was made by the complainant herself though it was in favour of her minor daughter and her daughter is still a minor and therefore as a guardian of the minor daughter, the complainant is capable of maintaining the present complaint in the present form.

            9.  The Op has also taken a contention that since the complaint had requested and instructed to deposit the interest on the F.D to the account of Sharada and Mahesh without impleading them as a party, the complaint is not maintainable.  But it may be noted that the Op first of all has failed to prove that such instructions were given by the complainant and there are no materials to show that the complainant had given such instructions in favour of Sharada and Mahesh.  The deposit of the interest in there name is the arbitrary act of the Op Bank only.  Therefore, the presence of Sharada and Mahesh is not at all required as they are not concerned to the present transactions.  The Op has also taken a contention that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP Bank, it may also be noted that the Banking service has been brought under purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is a customer of the Op.  Therefore, she is a consumer of the Op and she has legal right to maintain this complaint.

            10.  The complainant apart from directing the OP to refund the F.D amount along with the interest has also prayed for award of Rs.5,000/- as a compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.25,000/- as a costs of the proceedings with interest.  But no documents are produced to show that she suffered loss or harassment to that extent.  In the absence of any materials the award of compensation towards mental agony or harassment is not at all justifiable and more-over the Op is ready to refund the F.D amount, but the dispute is regarding only in respect of the interest.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that it is just and proper not to award any compensation.  However the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings.  With this we answer Point No.1 Partly in the Affirmative.

            11.  Point No.2: In the result the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part and hence we proceed to pass the following…

O R D E R

Complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

The Opposite Party is ordered to pay the amount of Four F.D’s bearing No.T.D.Cs 021-0445021, 021-0445022, 021-0445023, 021-0445024, in Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 with 6.25% of interest from 6.12.2004 till complete realization along with Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One thousand only) towards the costs of the proceedings within two months from the date of this order.

Send free copy of this order to the parties immediately.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of January 2011)

 

 

 

(A.M.Pattar)    District Judge(Rtd)            President.

(Smt.Girija.R.Adakenavar)                                                      Member.                   Lady Member.