BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st May 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.218/2014
(Admitted on 25.6.2014)
Mrs. Ramani,
Aged 59 years,
W/o H.K. Vasudeva,
R/near Kailash Theatre,
Hosadurga, Kanhangad,
Kanhangad,
Kasaragod District, Kerala.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. SH)
VERSUS
The Secretary,
Sri Bhagavathi Co Operative Bank ltd,
Market Road Branch, Mangalore,
Having it administrative office at,
Morgans Gate, Jeppu, Mangalore.
…......OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. MRB)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming, to refund deposit amount for Rs.80,752/, interest on the same from 24.12.2011 till 19.12.2013 at 12% per annum amounting Rs.19,380/, towards the compensation of Rs.50,000/, towards the litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/ and other reliefs.
2. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mrs. Ramani, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Dayanand B, (RW1) Branch Manager, also filed affidavit evidence and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R12 as detailed in the annexure here below.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
Complaint and the version of the parties perused. This complainant is with regard to the opposite party not refunded the fixed deposit (FD) kept with them on maturity. As per complaint allegation, the complainant had kept a fixed deposit called SHRI BHAGAVATHI CASH CERTIFICATE for Rs.50,845/ with the opposite party and on maturity when demanded the opposite party not honour and refunded the amount. On approach the opposite party postponed the refund on one pretext or the other and hence alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party contested the case on the ground that the complainant has already taken refund of the amount by obtaining duplicate FDR and premature it and withdrawn the money. There is no deficiency in service on their part. These are being the facts of dispute we are of the view to decide the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
On close examination of the records on file we gathered, the admitted facts that the deposit in FD with the opposite party. The opposite party denied that they have not paid the FD amount kept by the complainant. It is not disputed the complainant as the consumer. This being the crux we decided to adjudicated the following points for adjudication.
- Whether opposite party proves they have refunded the FD kept by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
- What order?
On considering the documents produced by the parties and the evidence lead, we have taken note of the notes filed by the opposite party, heard the submission the party counsels and answered the above points as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO 1: The complainant produced the SHRI BHAGAVATHI CASH CERTIFICATE (FDR) No CC 65/06 printed in C. C. No 000192 (EX C 1) for Rs.50,845/ with maturity value of Rs. 80,752/ on maturity date of 24.12.2011. This proves the deposing of money with the opposite party. But the complainant alleges that the opposite party not refunded the FD amount but the opposite party contends, they have returned the deposit kept by the complainant on issuing the duplicate certificate and premature withdrawal on the request of the complainant. Hence the burden is on opposite party to prove the payment and the point no 1 taken for consideration.
2. The opposite party contention is the complainant had applied for duplicate certificate on the ground of the original is lost (EX R 2) and the same has been withdrawn premature on the basis of the duplicate certificate (EX R 3) and an amount of Rs.51,564/ prematurity value and Rs. 434/ as interest is credited to complainant SB account (EX R 5) and withdrawn by the complainant Rs. 51,000/ through withdrawal slip (EX R 4). The opposite party produced the copy of the pass book sheets as EX R 12 to show the amount credited and withdrawn. On observation we found there is entry in the sheet 2 on date 31.10.06 an amount of Rs. 51,564 is credited and an amount of Rs.51,000/ withdrawn. These records established the payment of Rs. 51,564/ as maturity value on the certificate No CC 65/06.
3. The only discrepancy we found is the difference in the CC numbers. There are Two C.C. numbers in the FDRs. In the original FDR certificate produced by the complainant the one is in the serial No column as CC 65/06 and another is number stamped as No 000192. In the duplicate FDR certificate issued by the opposite party under serial No it is CC 65/06 which is not changed whereas in stamped printed No it is stamped as 000912. It is pertinent to note that in the alleged letter from the complainant for issued of duplicate certificate the complainant had mentioned the number as 92/00. The complainant not admitted the entire process of requesting for duplicate FDR certificate, issue of it and premature of the same also withdrawal of it. On our observation of the records the signatures in all these records tallies with the complainants signature in the original FDR certificate. Even though the complainant denies the withdrawal, the pass book entry of the SB Account no 874 proves the crediting of Rs. 51,564/ towards deposit from CC 65/06. When the CC 65/06 is mentioned in all the places of entry in the pass book, original FDR certificate, and duplicate FDR certificate we presume the another CC no stamped may be a clerical error. We also considered the complainant not contended that there is another FDR certificate with certificate CC number (stamped) with 00912 as contained in the duplicate FDR certificate. Even the complainant not explained the entry in the pass book pertaining to credit of Rs.51,564/ from which source the amount deposited. Hence we have strong circumstance to believe and conclude the amount credited to the SB A/C no 874 is the amount of the FDR certificate on prematurity. The opposite party has refunded the FD amount to the complainant on 31.10.06 with a valid discharge on the duplicate FDR certificate and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence we answered the point no 1 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2: As we hold the opposite party has refunded the FDR certificate amount and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
2. Further on analysis of the facts on record we find there is misuse of the beneficial legislation. As we observed the complainant has taken the money on the basis of the duplicate FDR certificate issued by the opposite party. Just while issuing the duplicate certificate there is error in stamping the certificate Number and it was mis numbered as o00912 instead of 000192. It was the duty of the complainant to handover the original when it was found. But the complainant not shown either generosity or promptness in her dealings and not with clean hands. It is not the case of the complainant that she had some other FDR certificate. When she know that she had only one FDR certificate and an amount credited to the complainant claimed to be of a lone FDR certificate, the complainant must have realized the mistake. Throughout the transactions pertaining to the disputed FDR certificate nowhere the CC no 000192 or 000912 is quoted for reference but only the CC 65/06 is quoted for reference. Hence we are of the firm opinion that the complainant has taken un advantage of the inadvertent error and approached the Forum with dirty hand and misused the beneficial legislation. The complainant had wasted the valuable time of the Forum as well as the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that the section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to attracted and the frivolous and vexatious complaint shall be dealt with. The complainant is to be penalized with a fine of Rs. 5000/ The opposite party is entitled for the fine amount as cost of litigation.
POINT NO 3: In the light of the above discussions and the adjudication of above points we deliver the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed with penalty. The complainant shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/ to the opposite party within 30 days from the date of the copy of this order received. On failure to comply the complainant shall pay an amount of Rs. 100/ per day from the date of default till the payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by Member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st May 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore. Additional Bench, Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 : Mrs. Ramani,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: The cash certificate bearing serial No. CC 65/06 and serial No.000192, dated 24.6.2006.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Mr. Dayanand B, Branch Manager,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Copy of the application cum specimen card dated 20.6.2006.
Ex.R2: Copy of the letter dated 29.9.2006 for issue of duplicate receipt.
Ex.R3: Copy of the duly discharged deposit receipt No.00912.
Ex.R4: Copy of the adjustment slip dated 31.10.2006.
Ex.R5: Copy of the withdrawal slip dated 31.10.2006.
Ex.R6: Copy of the relevant page of withdrawal slip requisition ledger.
Ex.R7: Copy of the application to open S.B. Account dated 16.7.2001.
Ex.R8: Copy of the specimen signature in S.B. A/c 874 of the complainant.
Ex.R9: Copy of letter dated 5.11.2012 addressed to the general manager of the bank.
Ex.R10. Copy of the letter dated 9.5.2013 of the general manager to the complainant.
Ex.R11: Copy of the letter addressed to SHO, Mangalore South P.S. by the general manager.
Ex.R12: Copy of the pass book.
Dated: 31.5.2017 MEMBER
