::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.47/2019.
Date of filing: 08.08.2019.
Date of disposal: 15.10.2020.
P R E S E N Ts:-
(1) Shri. Rajmohan Srivastava,
B.Sc., M.A.,LL.M.,
President.,
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B., (Spl.)
Member.
(3) Kum. Kavita,
M.A.,LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: Murlidhar, S/o Mogleppa Dande,
Occ: Chairman, Adarsh Charitable Trust,
Bidar, R/o H.No.8-8-139, KHB colony,
Bidar-585401
( By Shri. Deshpande P.M., Advocate)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Shivanagar, Bidar.
( By Shri. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate )
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Rajmohan Srivastava, President.
This complaint filed by the above said complainant ( old U/Sec. 12 of C.P.Act. 1986 ) U/sec. 35 1 &2 of the C.P.Act., 2019 (New ), against the Respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of Respondent.
2. The subject of the case is as under:
The Complainant submitted that he has regular transaction with the S.B.H. branch Shivanagar, Bidar and it was earlier State Bank of Hyderabad now it is merged with State Bank of India, branch Shivanagar, Bidar. The complainant submitted in his complaint that he made deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide FDR No. ST/3 0250966, dated 02.07.2009 for a term of five years and the maturity period dated 02.07.2014. The complainant further made F.D. for a term of another five years commencing from 03.07.2014 to 03.07.2019 and the maturity value subjected for Rs.4,62,463/-. Further renewal by endorsement on the back side of original FDR certificate No.ST/3 0250966 an account No.62348329369.
3. The complainant visited to enquire about the renewal of FD receipt on 09.08.2018 and on 04.09.2018. It is submitted that it was forwarded on 03.07.2014 of previous name S.B.H. Bank. It is submitted the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was brought hard cash and Rs.1,50,000/- as Trust drawn. It is submitted total Rs.3,00,000/- deposited in the Respondent Bank through voucher. The further maturity withdrawal period dated 03.07.2019. The Respondent- Bank has avoided to do the same as shown above and one pretext and the other and gave vague reasons. On 10.10.2018 a letter from the Respondent Bank addressed to the complainant that “ As per our record and your current account No. 52192770303 and by recording current account balance shown on 03.07.2014 Rs. 3,31,109/-“. It is also stated at the time of renewal as per Bank letter that the complainant withdrawn Rs. 1,50,000/- vide cheque No.029127 on 03.07.2014 and cash brought from Trust Rs.1,50,000/- and it is also made clear that Rs. 3,00,000/- given to the concerned official instead of depositing the same at the Bank cash counter. The Bank letter stated if any cash handed over to the official without taking any receipt or acknowledgement, Bank is not liable for such things. Hence, the Bank in the letter directed for any acknowledgement or receipt of cash deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- dated 03.07.2014 to produce at the Bank. The complainant stated the contents of letter by Respondent- Bank very strange, irrelevant and unfair trade practice. The complainant being depositor to the Bank is a beneficiary consumer. It is stated the complaint is filed directing the Respondent Bank to issue the certificate of FDR by renewal with seal of SBI, Branch Shivanagar, Bidar and damages Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for inconvenience with costs in the interest of justice.
4. The Respondent- Bank appeared through their Advocate in reply stated that, the complainant’s Education Trust having it’s current account in the Bank bearing No. 52192770303 in S.B.H. Shivanagar Branch, now it is called as S.B.I Naubad. The Respondent Bank submitted in para no.4 of the Written Statement of-course the complainant’s Trust had FDR No. 0250966 opened with account No. 62100224807 for Rs. 3,00,000/- on 02.07.2009 for a period of five years and the same was matured on 02.07.2014. But the Respondent Bank denied that the said FDR again deposited for further time of five years commencing from 03.07.2014 to 03.07.2019 for matured value of Rs.4,62,403/-. The Respondent Bank clearly submitted that the maturity FDR of Rs. 3,00,000/- from 02.07.2009 to 02.07.2014 stands closed and the maturity amount was credited to the current account of the Trustee i.e. A/C No. 52192770303 on 03.07.2014. It is also submitted the FDR valid up to 02.07.2014 and the account was closed the new account was opened with new account No. 62348329369 and there was no funding in the said account the account was closed and no new FDR issued to the complainant. The Bank also denied the endorsement on the back side of the earlier FDR and the renewal endorsement was given putting the FDR number and account no. 62348329369.
5. The Respondent-Bank further submitted that there will be no renewal by making endorsement but in it’s place fresh FDR will issue only if the account was properly funded as stated above. It is also denied the complainant visited on 09.08.2018 and 04.09.2018 for issue of FDR of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is also denied that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and cash Rs.1,50,000/- in a Trust account total of Rs. 3,00,000/- as per records no cash deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- was made by the complainant on 03.07.2014. The Bank as per account statement stated that the complainant had issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- to one Shivaji Patil cheque bearing no. 029127 and the same was honoured by the Respondent- Bank. The complainant is not produced the voucher for deposit of cash or transfer of amount of creating FDR. After issuance of cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- the remaining amount was withdrawn by the complainant from the current account on later dates. The Respondent Bank has not avoided the complainant or the officer of the Bank on duty has explained in detail as no funding was made in FD A/c no. 62348329369 and it is automatically closed. The complainant has come with false allegations in order to claim the amount in deceitful manner. The Bank has clear guidelines and procedures to act accordingly, there is negligence on the part of the complainant and non collecting the FDR itself is sufficient to prove that no such FDR issued, there is no unfair trade practice of the Bank and deficiency of service. The complaint itself is not maintainable and the complainant has no right to claim damages against the Respondent. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
6. The complainant to prove his case has given by sworn affidavit and narrated all the grounds & examined as P.W.1 and documents exhibited as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and closed his side.
7. The Respondent-Bank has examined as R.W.1 by Nabeel Tariq s/o Tariq A., Branch Manager, SBI Branch Naubad,Bidar and documents exhibited as Ex.R.1 to R.3.
8. The learned counsels appeared for complainant and Respondent advanced arguments in the light of evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and documents.
9. We have heard from the both sides and perused the documents carefully.
10. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case following points arose for our consideration.
- Whether the complainant proved the negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent- Bank by not issuing FDR receipt with seal to sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on renewal to a period from 02.07.2014 to 03.07.2019 for a maturity amount as stated?
- Whether the Respondent-Bank has not committed any unfair trade practice or shown negligence and so the complaint to be dismissed.
- What orders ?
11. Our answers to the points raised above are as follows:-
- In the Negative.
- In the Affirmative.
- As per the final order.
12. In connection with both points in consideration they are related to each other under the given facts from both sides they are common as to avoid repetition of contentions raised by both sides and for convenience points in consideration framed togetherly and considered those accordingly. The documentary evidence Ex.P.1 goes to show that the complainant and others constituted “ Adarsh Charitable Trust, Bidar” and so Trust deed produced. The complainant said to be a Chair Person of permanent Trustee. Ex.P.3 is the FDR receipt in the name of Chairman, Adarsh Charitable Trust and Regional Director for a period of five years and the maturity value shown Rs. 4,40,353/-. Further there is an endorsement at back of the FDR receipt i.e. Ex.P.3 that it is further extended for a period of five years from 03.07.2014 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- at the rate of interest 8.75 % until 03.07.2019. It is also recorded for the F.D. receipt for a period of five years the FDR Number shown 62100224867 and is rounded off or in other words closed. It is because the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. as it is submitted and recorded above for a period of another five years and shown the FD no. 62348329369. Ex.P.4 is a letter written to the Manager, State Bank of India, Shivanagar Branch that on 03.07.2014 the remaining amount from the Trust drawn Rs. 1,50,000/- and also the Trust possessed already cash Rs.1,50,000/- totally amounted to Rs. 3,00,000/- and filled up the voucher form handed over to Bank official for extension of F.D. from 03.07.2014 to 03.07.2019. When the complainant approached in regard to extended period but did not get proper answer from the Respondent Bank . The Respondent Bank by Ex.P.5 answered by explanation with regard to stated subject i.e. Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) Rs. 3.00 lacs dated 03.07.2018 A/c no. 62348329369. The Respondent- Bank by its explanation dated 10.10.2018 made clear that there was no funding of Rs.3,00,000/- to FDR account second time to the account No. 62348329369 which was automatically closed on 03.07.2014 itself. The Respondent Bank denied the contention that about Rs. 1,50,000/- out of further extension of FDR from 03.07.2014 onwards given to the concerned official instead of depositing the same at the cash counter is under banking norms unacceptable. It is also made clear in Ex.P.5 that if any amount handed over to Bank officials without taking any receipt/acknowledgement the Bank is not liable for such things. The Respondent Bank even gave an opportunity to the complainant that if any acknowledgement/receipt of cash deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- dated 03.07.2014 and if so to be produced at Bank and the Respondent Bank will take the matter accordingly. It is Ex.P.7 the legal notice about the cause of action if grievances of the complainant is not met to hold the Respondent Bank liable. The Ex.P.9 is the resolution conferred administrative power to contest as complainant against the Respondent Bank.
13. The Bank official represented by their penal Advocate in rebuttal produced Ex.R.1 statement of account and so also Ex.R.2 dated 21.07.2018 statement of account with the accrued interest for the said date 03.07.2014 and the maturity date and it’s value Rs. 4,62,463/- and to a term value Rs.3,00,000/-. It is Ex.R.3 which same as complainant produced about the reply of the Respondent- Bank as already discussed above relating to Ex.P.5. The Respondent Bank in the defense which is set up as the claim of the complainant Rs. 1,50,000/- vide cheque No. 029127 on 03.07.2014 withdrawn and cash brought from the Trust Rs. 1,50,000/- and total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- given to the Bank official cannot be believed. Because it is required to be deposited at the cash counter and the depositor should take receipt/acknowledgement from the Bank. It is nearly handing over to Bank official totally against the Bankers book evidence act 1981. Apart from that the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank argued that the data clearly will be maintained in the Bank about day to day transaction to show that taking logging and log out reports every day to ensure that access to the system is only by the authorized persons.
14. The evidence of the complainant is only about raising the same contention as taken in the compliant that Rs. 3,00,000/- was handed over to the Bank official of the Respondent Bank and the allegation that the Respondent Bank is acting negligently and denying on vague grounds. The counter evidence of Sri. Nabeel Tariq, s/o Tariq A. Branch Manager, SBI, Branch Naubad,Bidar in detail not only stated about the previous F.D. and totally denied in evidence as it is utterly false to say the FDR which was matured on 02.07.2014 was again deposited for further terms of five years commencing from 03.07.2014 to 03.07.2019 for maturity value of Rs. 4,62,403/-. It is further stated in his evidence and affidavit the maturity of the FDR of Rs. 3,00,000/- from 02.07.2009 to 02.07.2014 that was closed and the maturity amount was credited to the current account of the Trustee i.e. account No. 52192770303 on 03.07.2014. It is totally denied the Bank official by his affidavit in evidence there was no renewal of account done. It is further made clear the new deposit account which was opened in new account No.62348329369 and because of non funding the said new account deposit was closed on very same day and no new FDR is issued to the complainant. The Respondent Bank made clear after the maturity of earlier FDR no renewal will be made and only a fresh FDR will be issued if the account is properly funded. It is also denied that the complainant visited the Bank on 09.08.2018 and 04.09.2018 requesting for issue of FDR of Rs. 3,00,000/- When this kind of evidence produced by oral and documentary evidence the complainant is relying only on the back side of the endorsement of FDR receipt i.e. Ex.P.3. But the complainant has not produced any Banking rules and regulation in evidence that the renewal FDR will be done on the former FDR receipt by making endorsement on the back side for the further renewal. Therefore the complainant to prove that there was negligence on the part of the Respondent is unacceptable. Therefore from the above foregoing reasons it is very much clear that the complainant what he has stated that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- handed over to a Bank official is not the proper procedure but on the other hand he should get at cash counter either receipt or acknowledgement for the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- In this regard the complainant totally failed to prove the negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent Bank and therefore the point No.1 answered in the negative and point No.2 answered in the affirmative. It is from the above grounds the complainant failed to prove his case and we proceed to pass the following:
::ORDERS::
The complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 35 1 &2 of the C.P.Act., 2019, against Respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 15th day of October- 2020).
Sri.Shankrappa H. Member | Kum. Kavita, Member | Sri. Rajmohan Srivastava, President. |
Documents produced by the complainant.
- Ex.P.1- Copy of Trust-Deed of Adarsh Charitable Trust Bidar.
- Ex.P.2- Copy Statement of account no. 52192770303, Dated: 04.10.2018.
- Ex.P.3- FDR Certificate bearing No. 0250966.
- Ex.P.4- Letter addressed to the Branch Manager, SBI Shivanagar by the complainant.
- Ex.P.5- Letter addressed to the Chairman Adarsh Charitable Trust(R) Bidar.
- Ex.P.6-Postal receipt.
- Ex.P.7 – Copy of legal notice.
- Ex.P.8- Copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant.
- Ex.P.9- Resolution of Adarsh Charitable Trust ( R) Bidar.
Document produced by the Respondent.
1.Ex.R.1- Statement of current account No. 52192770303 of Adarsh Charitable Trust, Bidar.
2.Ex.R.2-Snap shot of FDR A/c No. 62348329369.
3.Ex.R.3-True certified copy of letter issued by the Bak to the Chairman Adarsh Charibale Trust.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Muralidhar s/o Mogleppa Dande (Complainant ).
Opponents
1 R.W.1- Nabeel Tariq, s/o Tariq A. (Respondent )
Shri.Shankrappa H. Member | Kum. Kavita, Member | Shri. Rajmohan Srivastava, President. |
