Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/122/2019

The Branch Manager, And another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tmt. Mahalakshmi, - Opp.Party(s)

B. Anand

08 Sep 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

 

PRESENT:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                  PRESIDENT

                 TMT. Dr. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                              MEMBER

 

 

F.A.No.122/2019

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.49 /2014, dated 01.03.2019 on the file of the District Commission, Villupuram)

 

 THE 08^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

 

1.   The Branch Manager,

      Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank,

      Manalurpet Branch,  Manalurpet & Post.

 

2.   The General Manager,

      Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank,

      No.2, Hospital Road,

      Villupuram – 605 602                                               Appellants/Opposite parties

 

                   Vs

 

Tmt. Mahalakshmi,

W/o.  Sami Velayutham,

No.2/322 – Annai Illam,

Pulavar Street – Pudhu Nagar,

Manampoondi, Tirukoilur Taluk,

Villupuram District – 605 759.  

 

Thiru.N.E. Suvitha Ganesan.

 President,

Tirukkoilur Consumer Protection Sangam,

Tirukkoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.                              Respondent/Complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties: M/s. B. Anand,  Advocate.     

For the Respondent/complainant               :  Appeared party-in-person.  

 

          This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 08.09.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellants/opposite parries and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.  (Open Court) 

 

1.      This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties/appellants herein under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the  District Commission, Villupuram made in C.C.No.49/2014, dated 01.03.2019, partly allowing the complaint.

2.     For the convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they had ranked in the District Commission, Villuppuram.

3.   The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-           The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that she had deposited a sum of Rs.65,584/- and another sum of Rs.1,20,067/- on 18.07.2011 under receipt No.148943  and 148943 respectively under the Fixed Deposit Scheme with the opposite parties Bank for a period of one year and its maturity date was 14.07.2012 and 04.07.2012 respectively.  Subsequently, due to her pre-occupation in agricultural work, failed to renew the deposits on its maturity date.  Hence, she approached the 1^st opposite party on 26.11.2012 for renewal.  The 1^st opposite party calculated interest from the date of maturity till the date of renewal only as per the savings bank account’s interest rate. The 1^st opposite party bank is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% and 10.50% respectively per annum on the above two fixed deposit receipts.  The opposite parties bank ought to have sent reminder to the complainant for renewal of Fixed Deposit Receipts. But, they have failed to send notice to the complainant for renewal. The 1^st opposite party calculated the interest at the rate of savings bank account interest which is not correct.  Again the complainant re-deposited the above two deposit amount on 26.11.2012 for further period of 12 months under the receipt No.246142 and 246143 and the maturity date was on 26.11.2013. The opposite parties have failed to remind the complainant to renew the deposit.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are liable to pay interest at the rate of 10.50 % each per annum for the above stated two fixed deposits respectively even for the period from the date of maturity and the date of renewal.  But, the opposite party bank refused to pay the above interest. Hence, the complainant approached the District Commission with a consumer complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay interest as agreed on the above two fixed deposits from the date of maturity till the date of renewal and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony with costs. 

4.    Resisting the complainant’s allegation, the opposite parties have filed their joint written version contending inter alia that it is not in practice to send a reminder to the depositors for renewal of their Fixed Deposit Receipts.  In fact, in the fixed deposit receipts itself the date of maturity was clearly mentioned.  Normally, the customers will renew the fixed deposits on the date of maturity.  In the instant case, due to the negligence of the complainant, she failed to renew her fixed deposit receipts on its maturity date and hence the bank cannot be held responsible for the negligence of the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties bank and thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.             

5.    Before the District Commission, to prove their case, the complainant and the opposite parties have filed their respective proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant and no Exhibit was marked on the side of the opposite parties before the District Commission. 

6.    Based on the above submissions and analyzing the evidences adduced by both sides, the District Commission by relying upon Ex A8, circular issued by the 2^nd opposite party, the General Manager, Villuppuram District Central Co-operative Bank to all the Branch Managers stating that the deposit holders should be informed of their deposits’ maturity date within 30 days from the date of maturity enabling them to renew their fixed deposits and in spite of the said intimation, if the customers have not come forward to renew their fixed deposits, the maturity amount should be transferred to their savings bank account, has come to the conclusion that the said circular was not followed by the opposite parties bank and therefore there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint directing them jointly and severally to pay the interest to the complainant for her deposits amount of Rs.65,584/- and Rs.1,20,067/- at the rate of 10% and 10% per annum respectively from the date of maturity till the date of renewal of her deposits and  further ordered them to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.2000/- with default interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. Aggrieved over the above order of the District Commission, the opposite parties 1 & 2 have preferred this appeal.   

7.    We heard the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record.  The only submission of the appellants/opposite parties is that it is not mandatory on their part to send intimation for renewal to the deposit holders with regard to the date of maturity of their fixed deposits since the date of maturity has already been visibly mentioned in the Fixed Deposit Receipts itself and also contended that it is not in practice to send communication to the deposit holders. The Fixed Deposit Receipts were not renewed only due to the negligence of the complainant and therefore the opposite parties cannot be blamed for the negligent act of the complainant. But, we are of the opinion that the observation made by the District Commission that there is a circular issued by the 2^nd opposite party, the General Manager of Villuppuram District Central Co-operative Bank to all the Branch Managers instructing them to intimate the date of maturity to the deposit holders about the maturity date of their deposits to enable them to renew their Fixed Deposits and in spite of the intimation given, if they failed to renew their Fixed Deposits then the maturity amount should be transferred to the savings bank account is proper and in the instant case, the 1^st opposite party bank has not followed the said circular.  Therefore, when there is a violation of the above mentioned circular on the part of the 1^st opposite party the conclusion arrived by the District Commission cannot be found fault with. Hence, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed as there is no merit in the case of the appellants/ opposite parties.    

 8.     In the result, the appeals is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission, Villupuram made in C.C.No.49/2014, dated 01.03.2019.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                              R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Sep/2021