ADDITIONAL PUNE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT PUNE
(BEFORE :- PRESIDENT :- Smt. Pranali Sawant )
MEMBER :- Smt. Sujata Patankar )
*********************************************************************
Complaint No. : APDF/70/2006
Date of filing :- 09/06/2006
Date of decision :- 30/11/ 2011
Shri. Prakash Indru Karnani, .. )
R/at :- Eden Garden, B-7, Flat No.519, .. )
Nagar Road, Vimannagar, Pune – 411 014. .. )COMPLAINANT
: versus:
The Seva Vikas Co-Operative Bank Limited, .. )
Head Office at : Laxmi Market, Pimpri, .. )
Pune -411017. .. )
Having its Branch Office at :- 5, Mini Market, .. )
Yamuna Nagar, Near Police Station, Pradhikaran, . )
Nigdi, Pune – 411 044. .. )OPPONENT
For Complainant : Adv. Shri. Nimbkar
For Opponent : Adv. Smt. Phaljani
Per : Smt. Pranali Sawant, President
//JUDGMENT//
[1] This is the complaint wherein the Complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the Opponent Bank for illegally appropriating amounts of FDRs in loan account of the partnership firm. The facts in brief which give rise to the present complaint are as follows :-
[2] The Complainant Mr. Prakash Karnani had deposited amount of Rs.35,000/- on 9/6/2002, Rs.10,000/- on 23/5/2002 and Rs.20,200/- on 6/7/2002 vide FQM numbers 4413, 4414, 4415 respectively. The Complainant is partner in a partnership firm by name Net Corporation India. This Net Corporation India Limited had availed Cash-Credit facility from the Opponent Seva Vikas Co.Operative Bank Limited (who shall hereinafter be refered as “Bank”). Since Cash Credit facility was overdue for repayment, the Bank had filed recovery proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Co.Operative Societies. It is the grievance of the Complainant that the Bank with malafide intention, appropriated the amounts of FD Receipts towards the outstanding dues of Cash Credit account of Net Corporation India. It is the contention of the Complainant that though he is a partner in this Net Corporation India, the FDRs were in his personal name and hence Bank had no authority to appropriate the amount of his personal FDR towards the loan of the firm. It is the grievance of the Complainant that without intimating this fact to the Complainant, the Bank has unilaterally and illegally appropriated the amount of FDRs towards loan account. The Complainant came to know about this fact on 17/4/2003 when the Bank sent a letter to Net Corporation India Limited. On receipt of this letter, Net Corporation India Limited wrote a letter to Bank objecting to the action taken by it. However the Bank replied to the Complainant stating that it has taken the above mentioned action in view of the general lien available to the Bank. According to the Complainant, the said action of the Bank is illegal and hence he has prayed for a direction to the Bank for refunding the amount of FDRs alongwith interest and the cost of litigation. The Complainant has filed affidavit and 8 documents vide Exh.3 in support of his complaint. Since there is a delay of 386 days in filing the complaint, the Complainant has also filed delay condonation application alongwith main complaint.
[3] On receipt of the Forum’s notice, the Bank filed its written version to the main complaint as well as its say to the delay condonation application. The Bank has strongly objected to the condonation of delay as the grounds setforth for condoning the delay are false and unjustifiable. As far as the main complaint is concerned, the Bank has denied all the allegations in respect of deficiency in service. The Bank has mentioned that 3 FDRs as mentioned in the complaint application were kept as security against the Cash Credit account of M/s. Net Corporation India in which the Complainant is a partner. Since FDRs were given as security they were and are in possession of the Bank. On maturity of these 3 FDRs, the amounts were reinvested and they were given receipt numbers FQM 4413, 4414 and 4415 whereas according to the Bank the FQ numbers before the maturity were 3649, 3658, 3663. Since the Complainant has given written consent letter to the Bank for treating these FDRs as security to the Cash Credit account of Net Corporation of India, according to the Bank, the Complainant has no right to make any grievance for appropriating the amount of FDRs to the loan account. According to the Bank, in view of the lien of the Bank and the consent letter of the Complainant, the action of Bank of appropriating the amount of FDRs is legal and valid and hence cannot be challenged by the Complainant. In view of the above circumstances, the Bank has prayed for dismissal of the complaint alongwith compensatory costs. The Bank has filed affidavit of the authorized representative of the Bank as well as consent letter and copies of FQM in support of its say.
[4] After filing say by the Bank, the Complainant did not file any further evidence, hence the written notes of arguments were filed by the Opponent vide Exh.18 alongwith one authority of Hon’ble High Court, Mumbai. The Complainant also filed his written notes of arguments vide Exh.19 but this written notes are related only to the point of delay condonation. On the next returnable date, nobody was present on behalf of the Complainant to argue the matter whereas Advocate Smt. Falzani passed a purshis stating that the matter be decided on the basis of the written notes of arguments submitted on behalf of the Bank. Accordingly, the matter was posted for judgment. Before the returnable date of judgment the Complainant filed his notes of written arguments in the office of the Forum without seeking permission to file the same at that stage.
[5] On perusal of the complaint, say and documents, the written arguments of both the parties filed on the record, following points arise for our consideration :-
The points and their answers are as follows :-
Points Answers
- Whether the delay caused in filing
the complaint deserves to be allowed? … Yes.
- Whether the Bank has rendered deficient
service to the Complainant? … No.
- Whether the complaint deserves to be
allowed? … No.
4. What order? …Complaint stands dismissed.
Point No.1 :- Since there is a delay of 386 days in filing this complaint, the Complainant has filed a separate delay condonation application alongwith the main complaint. It has been submitted by the Complainant that his daughter aged 3 years had met with some serious accident and was required to undergo major surgery. There were also few other mishaps with the family members of the Complainant and hence according to him, he could not give necessary instructions to his advocate for filing the present complaint. The Complainant has filed medical reports and other documents in support of his application. The Bank has filed its detail objection to the delay condonation application of the Complainant. It has been specifically mentioned by the Bank in para 5 of its say that various litigations were filed by the Complainant before different authorities during that time and hence the ground for delay is not genuine. However the Bank has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of its contentions. Whereas the grounds of Complainant for condoning the delay are supported by documentary evidence. Hence in view of the fact of the accident we are inclined to grant the delay caused in filing this complaint application. Hence the delay is condoned and accordingly point No. (1) is answered in the affirmative.
Point No.2 (i) :- It has been specifically alleged by the Complainant that without there being any specific instruction or proper discharge of the FDRs the Bank has under the grab of general lien appropriated the amounts of the FDRs towards the loan amount of Net Corporation India. Whereas the Bank has denied this allegation and has mentioned that the Complainant had given his consent letter to pledge these FDRs as security towards the loan account. On perusal of the documents submitted by the Bank, specifically the consent letter given by the Complainant it can be seen that Complainant himself has pledged his FDRs by way of security for the Cash Credit Account of M/s. Net Corporation India. In this letter of consent it has been specifically mentioned that “it is understood that in case of default of the above loan, overdraft account, I, We hereby authorize you to encash my / our fixed deposit receipts and adjust the same to the loan / overdraft account without making any reference to me/s.”
(ii) On bare perusal of this consent letter, it can be in-hesitantly held that the disputed FDRs were pledged by the Complainant by way of security with the Bank. In such a situation, the Complainant has no right to make any grievance in this respect. It also needs to be noted that all the original FDRs are in the possession of the Bank. Unless and until the Complainant himself pledges these FDRs with the Bank, the Bank had no authority to have these original FDRs in its possession. What we gather from the documents filed on record is that the Bank has appropriated the amount of FDRs towards loan amount not by way of general lien but because of the consent letter given by the Complainant. It is also important to note that after filing the say and documents by the Bank, the Complainant has not denied the execution of the consent letter. There is no evidence whatsoever from the Complainant to prove the illegal or unauthorized appropriation of amounts of FDRs towards loan account. It has been admitted by the Complainant in the complaint itself that the Cash-Credit facility is overdue and recovery proceeding is pending for the same. However surprisingly there is not even a whisper in the entire complaint in respect of the willingness of the Complainant to repay the overdue amount of the Cash Credit facility. We cannot ignore the fact that Complainant is partner in the Net Corporation India which has availed Cash-Credit facility. It is very natural and legal for the Bank to take all the necessary steps to recover the overdue amounts of loan.
(iii) In his written notes of argument the Complainant has raised the grievance that Bank has failed to prove by way of evidence that any amount is due and payable to Bank. However on perusal of para 6 of complaint it is noticed that Complainant himself has admitted that Cash Credit facility of M/s. Pan Asian is overdue and some recovery proceeding is pending in this respect. In such a situation the fact which is admitted by Complainant need not be proved by Bank and hence in our opinion the grievance of Complainant on this count is baseless and liable to be rejected. On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by both the parties there is nothing on record to prove that Bank acted arbitrarily, malafidely or illegally while appropriating the amount of FDRs. Hence in such a situation we hold that Bank has not rendered any deficient service to the Complainant. Accordingly, we answered the point No.2 in negative.
Point Nos. 3 and 4 :- Since the Forum has concluded that the Bank has not rendered deficient service to the Complainant, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and accordingly we answer the point No.3 in negative and pass the following order :-
// ORDER//
(1) The complaint stands dismissed.
(2) Parties to bear their own cost.
(3) Certified copies of this order be furnished to the
Complainant and the Opponents free of costs.
(Smt. Sujata Patankar) (Smt. Pranali Sawant)
MEMEBR PRESIDE NT
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PUNE.
Place : Pune
Date : 30/11/2011
