ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            The complainant filed this complaint for getting a direction to the 1^st opp.party to pay Rs.8447/- [R.D. deposit amount] to the complainant with compensation and cost.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          On 23.6.2003 the 2^nd opp.party approached the complainant’s house and introduced herself as promoter cum money collector of the Uliyakovil Service Co-operative Bank and as such she induced the complainant to open a Recurring Deposit in the Bank.   Accordingly the complainant collected  the said R.D. Account scheme from the first opp.party.   The scheme period is 5 years the monthly instalment is fixed as Rs.100/-  and the amount repayable  Rs.8,477/-   Thereafter on 2.7.03  the  1^st opp.party issued a pass book bearing No. R.D.A/c.No.277 and received a sum of Rs.100/- yoestfd yhr 1^st instalment.     The 1^st opp.party further informed the complainant that the monthly instalments shall be collected by the 2^nd opp.party  who will make  house visit.   The 2^nd opp.party made regular monthly house visit and collected the instalments and issued due receipts and entered the figures in the pass book.    This was done till the month of July  After July 2004 the 2^nd opp.party abstained from collecting the monthly instalment .  The complainant approached the 1^st opp.party and reported the same to her but the 1^st opp.party denied to release the money deposited.    On 12.11.2004 the complainant sent a legal notice to the 1^st opp.party demanding the money dues to the complainant but the 1^st opp.party has not yet responded to the notice.  Thereafter on 13.1.2005 the complainant submitted a petition to the 3^rd opp.party but unfortunately the 3^rd  opp.party has taken no step so far.  Hence the complaint.

          The 1^st opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant is a depositor in the Uliyakovil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and she started recurring deposit account bearing RD Account No.277.   The monthly installments to be remitted by the complainant to her RD A/c. are Rs.100/- per month.  The scheme is said to be for 5 years.   As per the Resolution No.56 dt. 21.4.1995 the  Board of Directors of  the 1^st opp.party,  the 2^nd opp.party was appointed as collection agent in the bank and she was entrusted to conduct the collection towards recurring deposit and remit the same to the bank in the respective names of the depositors.  But the complainant discontinued the remittance of the instalments towards her RD account.  The complainant has remitted Rs.1400/- only ie 14 instalments in the place of 60 instalments.   As per the deposit sub rules of the bank, the depositors has to remit the instalments Rs.100/- per month, every month consecutively for 5 years, if so only the bank will pay Rs.8447/- on the date of maturity..  The bank has received only Rs.1400/- towards the instalments of the RD account in the respect of the complainant.   The complainant’s RD account will have been completed on 306.2008 only  The complainant approached the bank on 12/2004 the 1^st opp.party directed the complainant to produced her recurring deposit amount passbook along with an application for recollection with the bank accounts with interest.  But the complainant did not obey the direction till the date. According to the deposit sub-rules regarding the RD deposit approved by the Board of Director of the 1^st opp.party if any depositor discontinue the deposit the bank will pay the total amount actually remitted plus the prescribed rate of interest only.  But the depositor discontinued to remit her instalments of RD Account  in the bank in times.    Hence the bank is liable to pay the deposited amount with a specified interest only, which is already informed to the complainant.  But no application for the same has been received from the complainant so far.  There is no deficiency in  service on the part of the 1^st opp.party.  Hence 1^st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

          2^nd opp.party is set exparte.

The 3^rd opp.party filed a version contending as follows:    The complainant is a depositor in the Uliyakovil Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1103, the 1^st opp.party is working as secretary and started Recurring Deposit Account Bearing R.D. Account No.272.   The monthly instalments to be remitted by the complainant to her RD Account is Rs.100/- per month.  The scheme is  to be for 5 years.    The Board of Directors of the 1^st opp.party in which the 1^st opp.party working as the Secretary, vide their resolution No.56 dt. 21.4.1995, the 2^nd opp.party was appointed as Collection Agent in the bank and was entrusted to conduct the collection towards recurring deposit and remit the same to the  Bank in the respective names of the Depositors.  The complainant discontinued the remittance of instalments towards her RD Account.  On verification of the Bank records it is understood that the complainant has remitted Rs.1400/- only that 14 monthly instalments in the place of 60.  The instalments @ Rs.100/- per month every month consecutively for 5 years, if so only the Bank will pay Rs.8447/- on the date of maturity. The complainant did not complete the period of deposit of 5 years or paid the instalments promptly and fully.   The complainant did not produce her pass book to the 1^st opp.party for reconciliation  and for finding whether there is any mis remittance made by the 2^nd opp.party.  Hence the   3^rd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in  service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainantPW.1 is examined.  Ext. P1 to P5 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined.   Ext. D1to D4 are marked

Points:

          The complainant’s case is that he is a Recurring Depositor of the 1^st opp.party bank where 1^st and 2nd opp.parties render service as Secretary and money collector respectively.   After collecting 13 instalments, the 2^nd opp.party stopped money collection.  Complainant demanded to the 1^st opp.party to withdraw the amount due to her.  But the 1^st opp.party was not ready to release the full amount of Rs.8447/-.  Hence this complaint.    The 1^st opp.party’s main contention is that  the scheme is said to be for 5 years.   As per the deposit sub rules of the bank, the depositors has to remit the instalments Rs.100/- per month.   Every month consecutively for 5 years.  Thus only the bank will pay Rs.8447/- on the maturity date.  Here the complainant has  remitted only 14 installments ie. Rs.1400/- only  According to the opp.party complainant is a defaulter.   As per the sub Rules, if any depositor discontinue the deposit, the bank will pay the total amount actually remitted plus the prescribed rate of interest only.  In this case also the 1^st opp.party’s bank is ready to give the above said amount to the complainant

          Here there is no dispute that the complainant is a Recurring Depositor of the 1^st opp.party’s Bank and she remitted only Rs.1400/- [14 instalments].  According to the complainant even though  she had remitted 14 instalments only, he is eligible to get the full benefit of the scheme because the complainant could not remit the instalments due to the stoppage of money collection by the 2^nd opp.party.  As per condition lNo.6 in Ext. D2 the complainant ought to have verified his pass book with the bank entries.  As a recurring depositor, the complainant himself could have remitted the balance instalments directly  to the bank.  In Ext. D1 the complainant himself  declared that I agree to abide by all the rules of the bank now in force or to be brought into  fore thereafter.   According to condition No.5 in Ext. D2 as a defaulter, the complainant is eligible to get normal interest.  In Ext.P4 also the complainant is demanding only Rs.1400/- from the 1^st opp.party..  From the entire evidence we are of the view that as the complainant himself is the defaulter and committed latches, he is eligible to get the remitted amount plus normal interest.   The complainant has not filed any application before the bank for getting back the amount.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 3^rd opp.party.  As the 2^nd opp.party did not turn up before  the Forum  for filing version, or adducing evidence   even after getting the summons, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opp.party.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed.   The  1^st opp.parties is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1400/- with 3.5% per annum .  2^nd opp.party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant.   The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of order.

Dated this the     30^th    day of March, 2009.

                                                                    .

I N D E X

List  of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. Anil Kumar

List of documents for the complaianant

P1. – Power of Attorney

P2./ - Copy of pass Book

P3. – Receipts of the opp.party

P4. – Legal Notice

P5. – Courier receipt

P6. – Serial No.18 application dt. 13.1.2005

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – Santhosh Kumar

DW.2. – K.K. Santhi

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Copy of application

D2. – Proceedings

D3. –Conditions of the bank

D4. – Complaint to the 3^rd opp.party.