IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 18th day of September, 2021.
Filed on 19-08-2019
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.202/2019
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt.Sudina K 1. Muhamma Service Co-operative
W/o Chellappan Bank Ltd. No.1670, Muhamma P.O.
Uraliveliyil Cherthala
Muhamma P.O. Rep. by its Secretary
Cherthala- 688525
(Adv. Sri. T Saji) 2. Sri.Sunil Kumar
Puthenveli, Kallapuram
Muhamma P.O.
The Secretary Muhamma Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1670, Muhamma P.O.
Cherthala
(Adv. Sri. N.P. Kamaladharan for Ops)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
During 2014 complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed deposit with the 1st opposite party bank were 2nd opposite party is its secretary. 2 certificates of Rs.50,000/- were issued. Initially the deposit was for a period of one year and during 2015 it was renewed for a further period of one year ie upto 2016. At the time of renewal Rs.50,000/- was increased to Rs.61,189/- including interest and on 17.05.16 the maturity value was Rs.67,871/-. Two FD receipts having serial Nos.0002720 and 0002722 were issued to the complainant. During 2016 when the complainant approached the bank claiming the amount it was informed that both certificates are one and the same and gave Rs.67,871/- being the amount of certificate No.0002722. They informed that regarding the amount of serial No.0002720 they had to verify. Though complainant approached the bank claiming the amount it was not returned.
2. Complainant filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar (Co-operative Societies Cherthala) and after enquiry it was informed that complainant had only one deposit and the amount was collected by her and that receipt having serial No.0002720 is the duplicate of receipt No.0002722. They informed that complainant collected a duplicate receipt from the bank contenting that the original was lost and so they demanded to return the certificate.
3. Complainant has not applied for duplicate fixed deposit receipt and both receipts are originals obtained when money was deposited. Complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.67,871/- along with future interest being the maturity value of FDR No.0002720. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing Rs.67,871/- along with future interest @ 11 % from 08.05.2016 till realization. Complainant is also seeking an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and also claiming Rs.5,000/- as cost.
4. Opposite parties filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The delay in filing the complaint questions the credibility of the complaint that the FDR is a fabricated one. Complainant, her deceased husband and son were having accounts and several transactions with the bank. The averment that during 2014 complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as two fixed deposits is false. The averments that complainant obtained two FD receipts for Rs.1,00,000/- is false. During 2014 the bank was not computerized and all transactions were done manually. It appears that complainant obtained a duplicate certificate for the same amount. Complainant had produced the original receipt and collected the matured amount. Thereafter she approached the bank with another receipt claiming the amount and it was not honoured. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
5. On 05.02.2018 complainant had filed a complaint before the Co-operative assistant registrar, Cherthala and after enquiry reply was issued stating that the complaint is false. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint before the Co-operative joint registrar and enquiry was conducted. He was also convinced that complainant is having certificate with same number. Hence the complaint filed on experimental basis may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
6. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.67,870/- along with interest being the maturity value of FD receipt No.0002720 as prayed for?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation?
- Reliefs and cost?
7. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and Ext.B1series from the side of opposite parties.
8. Point Nos.1 to 3:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A7.
9. RW1 is the 2nd opposite party in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1 series.
10. RW2 is working as assistant registrar with the co-operative department. He is familiar with the complainant and for Ext.A1 complaint he had furnished Ext.A5 reply. Co-operative inspector had visited the bank and after necessary enquiry reply was issued. At the time of enquiry it was revealed that 2 certificates were issued for one account. Two certificates as number 0002720 and 0002722. Amount of one fixed deposit receipt was returned to the complainant.
11. The case put forward by PW1, the complainant is that she deposited Rs.1,00,000/- during 2014 as fixed deposit before the 1st opposite party bank of which 2nd opposite party is the secretary. The bank issued 2 FD receipts of Rs. 50,000/- each. Though initially the amount was deposited for a period of one year it was renewed during 2015 and 2016. She was issued two FD receipts showing that on 7/5/2016 ie, on the day of maturity the maturity value will be Rs.67,801/-. The receipts where having numbers 0002720 and 0002722. During 2016 when she approached the bank to withdraw the amount she was given an amount of Rs.67,871/- being the maturity value of FD receipt No. 0002722. It was informed that both certificates are one and the same and the bank required more time to verify the genuineness of the transaction. However though the complainant approached the bank several times they were not ready to give the amount. Hence she filed complaints before the Asst. Registrar and Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. It was informed that the receipt which is now in the possession of complainant is a duplicate of the receipt which was encashed. Hence they rejected the claim of the complainant and so she has filed this complaint seeking the amount of Rs. 67,871/- along with interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version contenting that complainant had not deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as Fixed Deposit. She had only deposited Rs.50,000/- which was renewed and the final amount deposited was Rs.61,189/-. The maturity value of the said amount ie, Rs.67,871/- was given to the complainant. She might have obtained a duplicate certificate and it is produced along with the complaint. A complaint was filed before the Co-operative Asst. Registrar and Co-operative Joint Registrar. Enquiry was duly conducted and informed to the complainant that the certificate in possession of the complainant is duplicate. Hence according to them the complaint which was filed on an experimental basis is only to be dismissed. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 were marked. 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 series were marked. Asst. Registrar of Co-operative societies was examined as RW2.
12. Ext.A7 is the disputed receipt. On a perusal of the same it is seen that the account number shown is 2724 and the serial No. is 0002720. It was a receipt of cumulative cash certificate w.e.f 7/5/2015 and the maturity date is on 7/5/2016. The amount deposited was Rs.61,189/- and the maturity value is Rs. 67,871/-. Ext.B1(b) is the photocopy of cumulative cash certificate issued in favour of the complainant. The account number is 2724 and the serial number is 0002722. W.e.f 7/5/2015 and the date of maturity is 7/5/2016. The amount deposited and the maturity value etc are one and the same. Ext.B1(b) was encashed by the bank and Ext.A7 was rejected on a contention that it is a duplicate of Ext.B1(b). Admittedly PW1, her husband and their children had several transactions with the bank which is a co-operative bank. PW1 is residing at Muhamma near the 1st opposite party bank. So PW1 and her family will have close acquaintance with the staff of the 1st opposite party bank. Even in the complaint PW1 admitted that she had several transactions with the bank. During cross examination PW1 admitted that there was no complaints against the opposite party bank and the bank is doing business truly and honestly. Complainant filed an IA as No. 105/2020 for giving a direction to the 1st opposite party bank to produce the day book and FD registers. Accordingly the documents were produced. In cross examination PW1 admitted that on going through the documents she could not find out that there was 2 deposits of Rs.50,000/- each.
13. Ext.B1, Ext.B1(a) and Ext.B1(c) are 3 FD receipts of the complainant with the 1st opposite party bank. On a perusal of these documents it is seen that for each deposit the bank assigns an account number. For eg. Ext.B1 the account number is 12611., Ext.B1(a) it is 14548 and in Ext.B1(c) it is 17340. The account number assigned to Ext.B1(b) which was encahsed by the bank is 2724. The account number given to Ext.A7 receipt which is alleged to be duplicate is also 2724. So as rightly contented by the opposite party bank Ext.A7 can be the duplicate of Ext.B1(b) or vice versa. It is true that in Ext.A7 or in Ext.B1 (b) it is not written that it is a duplicate one. Further for issuing a duplicate receipt there are certain formalities such as collecting an application, affidavit etc. Here in this case opposite party bank could not produce any such document to show that one of the receipts was duplicate. Moreover RW1, 2nd opposite party who is the secretary admitted that they use to write “duplicate” in the duplicate receipts. Here it is not seen written either in Ext.B1(b) or in Ext.A7. As rightly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties there was dereliction of duty from the part of the staff of the opposite party bank by non collection of documents before issuing duplicate and writing duplicate in the receipt.
14. RW2 is the Co-operative Asst. Registrar of Cherthala. PW1 prefered Ext.A1 complaint before him on 5/2/2018 and after due enquiry through the Co-operative inspector he filed Ext.A2 reply showing that she is having a duplicate. Thereafter PW1 filed Ext.A3 complaint before the Joint Registrar on 28/2/2019 which was forwarded to RW2, Asst. Registrar along with Ext.A4 covering letter. After due enquiry Ext.A5 similar reply that of Ext.A2 was given to the complainant. So it can be seen that on the basis of Ext.A1 and Ext.A3 complaints RW2 conducted two enquiries through unit inspector and found that one of the certificate is duplicate. As discussed earlier since PW1 and her family had several transaction with the 1st opposite party bank and so that they had close acquaintance there is a possibility of getting a duplicate certificate without any formalities. Since account number 2724 is assigned to Ext.A7 and Ext.B1(b) it is pellucid that there was only one account and only one deposit. From Ext.A2 reply issued by RW2 it is seen that PW1 received the amount of Ext.B1(b) on 5/10/2016. However Ext.A1 complaint was given only on 5/2/2018 ie, after about 16 months. The inordinate delay in filing the complaint is not properly explained. Similarly though Ext.A5 reply denying her claim is dated 28/5/2019 she filed the complaint before the Commission only on 19/8/2019. In said circumstances on a perusal of the entire evidence and in the light of the above discussion it is seen that the case advanced by the opposite parties is more probable that Ext.A7 is a duplicate of Ext.B1(b) which she had already encahsed. Since one of the certificate is duplicate (either Ext.A7 or Ext.B1(b) ) and so that Ext.B1(b) was encashed on 5/10/2016. PW1 is not entitled to realize any amount from the opposite parties. These points are found against the complainant.
15. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 18th day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sudina.K(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Complaint before Asst. Registrar
Ext.A2 - Reply dtd. 4/8/2018
Ext.A3 - Copy of Complaint before Joint Registrar
Ext.A4 - Reply dtd.28/2/2019 from Joint Registrar
Ext.A5 - Original Reply from Asst. Registrar dated.28/3/2019
Ext.A6 - Original Reply from Unit Inspector dated 27/3/2019
Ext.A7 - Cumulative Cash Certificate No.2720
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sunilkumar.C.S (OP2)
RW2 - K.D.Deepu(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of FD No.0002723
Ext.B1(a) - Copy of FD No.0004676
Ext.B1(b) - Cumulative Cash Certificate No.0002722
Ext.B1(C) - Copy of FD No.0007486
True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
