Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking payment of interest @24% p.a., from the date of maturity till the date of payment; Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, anguish and harassment; Rs.60,000/- towards legal expenses at both Guntur and Hyderabad; Rs.10,000/- towards transport, lodging etc., at Hyderabad and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the 1^st opposite party on 08-07-02 for a period of six months.  The said deposit matured by 09-01-03.  After maturity date the complainant approached opposite parties and demanded for payment of maturity value.  The opposite parties did not pay the maturity amount on the pretext that the FDR was freezed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID in case No.1/FD/2006 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge’s Court, Guntur.   The same was not at all whispered in charge sheet filed by the concerned authority.  The complainant filed WP.No.17072/2010 and the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to pay the deposited amount to the complainant.  On furnishing the above judgement the respondents paid Rs.1,32,123/- and Rs.42,356/- only.   The interest calculated after maturity period is meager and peanut in the present market rates.   Due to non payment of deposit amount by the opposite parties the complainant was constrained to borrow money from outsiders at exorbitant rate of interest.   On account of such attitude of opposite parties the complainant was put to great mental agony, anguish and pain which cannot be compensated in pecuniary terms.   The market rates have escalated exorbitantly including gold and immovable property.   If the opposite parties paid the maturity value to the complainant in time the complainant would have minted the money running to lakhs and lakhs.   The above conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.

3.   The contention of the 1^st opposite parties in brief is hereunder:

        The complainant approached the Consumer Forum suppressing the vital facts and with unclean hands.   The complainant filed CC 231/05 and the same was dismissed on 17-01-06.   The order passed in CC 231/05 became final as the complainant did not carry the matter in appeal.  The complainant intentionally suppressed the fact of filing CC 231/05 and orders thereon.   The order passed in CC 231/05 is binding on the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party gave a suitable reply to the notice issued by the complainant.   The complainant filed a petition before the Banking Ombudsman who inturn gave reply.   The opposite party through letters on many occasions requested the CBCID about the fact of releasing FDRs of the complainant which were frozen under the orders of the CBCID on 24-09-02.  The 1^st opposite party is the bank dealing with public money.  When a criminal case was pending and the CBCID had ordered freezing the deposits of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party is not in a position to pay the maturity value.   The 1^st opposite party was neither a party to the proceedings before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID or to the proceedings on the file of the Prl. Sessions Court, Guntur.   The complainant received the entire deposit amount together with accrued interest without any protest.    If there is any relief to be claimed for the complainant it is against the CBCID which directed the 1^st opposite party to freeze the deposit and orders not to release the funds to the complainant.   The complaint is bad for non joinder of CBCID.   The complaint therefore be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.     The 2^nd opposite party filed version contending that the complainant made him as unnecessary party while adopting the version of the 1^st opposite party.

5.    Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-13 on behalf of opposite parties were marked. 

6.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service in not paying the maturity value of FDR after the maturity date?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?

7.   Admitted facts in this complaint are these:

          a. The complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 08-07-02                           with the 1^st opposite party (Ex.A-1).

        b. Maturity date of the said FDR was 09-01-03.

        c. The complainant and another filed WP.No.17072/10 before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad against the opposite parties and another (Ex.A-4).

        d. The 1^st opposite party paid Rs.1,32,123/- and Rs.47,651/- on                 04-08-12 and 10-09-12 (Ex.A-2&A3).

8.  POINT No.1:-   Ex.B-1 is the Xerox copy of order dated 17-01-06 in CD 231/05.   Ex.B-1 revealed that the complainant herein filed CD 231/05 against the 1^st opposite party herein for refund of FD amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @8% and costs, the total claim being Rs.4,24,666/-.   This Forum on 17-01-06 while dismissing the complaint made the following:

       “In this regard, it is proper to note when there is a dispute about the deposits of D. Siva Prasad and Prameela Devi who are family members of the main accused D.K.M. Gupta, the original deposit receipts should be produced to show the bonafides of the complainant.  For the best reasons known, the complainant could not file the original fixed deposit receipt issued by the opposite party herein.  At this juncture, it is significant to refer Ex.A-4 the copy of the charge sheet produced by the complainant herein.   The 1^st accused is the complainant in CD 232/2005 against whom grave allegations are made to the effect that the misappropriation and diverted the funds for their benefit.  Ex.A-4 also discloses the FDR receipts, which are in the name of the accused and family members of D.K.M. Gupta seized during the course of investigation.  In page 21 of Ex.A-4 it is noted that the 1^st accused forged the signatures and transacted in the name of minor sons.   It also revels in page 34 about the deposits made in the name of D. Siva Prasad by his father who is the 1^st accused in the criminal case filed by the CBCID policy.   In view of the above circumstances, it is incumbent on the part of the complainant herein as to produce the original receipt issued by the opposite party.   Similarly the document Ex.A-4 which is produced by the complainant itself establishes the fact that Ex.A-1 and A-2 who are the parents of the complainant involved in criminal case under sections 406, 420, 474, 477-A, 477, 177 IPC r/w 120-B IPC.   In view of the above proceedings as the criminal case pending for misappropriation of crores of rupees, it is not justified to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- and odd to the complainant.   Hence the complainant could not establish the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.   The 1^st point is held against the complainant”. 

9.     The complainant did not make a whisper about she filing              CD 231/05 before this Forum and orders thereon.   Under those circumstances it has to be inferred that order dated 17-01-06 in                CD 231/05 became final.   The order passed under original of Ex.B-1 is binding on the complainant.

10.  The complainant in page 2 of her complaint mentioned that the opposite parties paid Rs.1,32,123/- and Rs.42,356/- on furnishing copy of judgement in WP No.17072/2010.   As the order in CD 231/05 became final the opposite parties are justified in not paying the maturity value of FDR to the complainant.   Therefore we opine that the 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

11. POINT No.2:-  The complainant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as damages towards mental agony and harassment for the last ten years; Rs.60,000/- towards legal expenses both at Guntur and Hyderabad;  Rs.10,000/- towards transport, lodging at Hyderabad.  The complainant did not place any material before the Forum justifying the compensation sought.  In Smt Ganga Patil and others vs. Executive Engineer (Electrical and others) 2013 (1) CPR 255 (NC) it was held that amount of compensation must commensurate with the quantum of loss. 

In this case the complainant did not place any material justifying the compensation claimed.   In view of our findings on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

12.  POINT No.3:-   The complainant did not mention about filing             CD 231/05 against the 1^st opposite party herein and order thereon             (Ex.B-1) intentionally as rightly contended by the opposite parties and it amounted to suppression of material facts.  It can therefore be inferred that the complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands suppressing the dismissal of CD 231/05 on 17-01-06.  Under those circumstances, dismissing the complaint with costs of Rs.2,000/- will meet ends of justice. 

        In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the complainant to the opposite parties within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

 Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2013.

          MEMBER                        MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For opposite parties:    

                                                                            PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.