KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:51/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:02..01..2010. PRESENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Branch Manager, South Malabar Gramin Bank, : APPELLANT Thazhekode Branch, Thazhekkode.P.O, Perinthalmanna (via), Malappuram. (By Adv: Sri.K.N.Justin) Vs. V.P.Hamza, S/o Muhammed Haji, Valiapedikekkal House, Arakkupparambbu.P.O, : RESPONDENT Perinthalmanna (via), Malappuram. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:15..2..2008 of the CDRF, Malappuram in OP:109/04. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency of service in not permitting the complainant/respondent from withdrawing the amount from the Nitya Nidhi Deposit Account No:4256 and closing the agricultural loan taken under Kisan Credit Card Account No:584. The complainant claimed compensation from the opposite party, South Malabar Gramin Bank, Thazhekkodu Branch for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant. The opposite party entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party contended that the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4682/- from the NN Deposit, on 25..3..2004 and that the next withdrawal can only be effected on 8..8..2004; that the opposite party bank had lien over the amount in the NND account, for the amount due from the complainant under the agricultural loan availed under Kisan Credit Card Account No:584. It is also contended that the complainant did not submit any application for premature closure of the NN account in order to close the agricultural loan account. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP:109/04. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A7 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B7 on the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below found deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Thereby directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- for the financial loss suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant. The opposite party was also directed to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party therein. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on Exts.B1 and B2 circular and memo issued by the bank authorities and canvassed for the position that the opposite party acted only in accordance with the guidelines issued by the bank authorities. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He also relied on the request made by the complainant vide A4 letter dated:30..4..2004 for closure of the NN account for the purpose of closing the agricultural loan taken by the complainant under Kisan Credit Card account No:584. It is further submitted that the admitted facts would make it clear that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by withholding the amount under the NN deposit account No:4256. Thus, the respondent requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the respondent/complainant? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:15..2..2008 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP:109/04? 5. Points 1 and 2:- The fact that the complainant opened a Kisan Credit Card Account No:584 on 8..8..2001 and he availed agricultural loan of Rs.25,000/- under the said Kisan Credit Card Account is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that on 20..3..2003 the complainant started the NN deposit with account No:4256 and he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4682/- from the said NND account. The aforesaid premature withdrawal was effected on 25..3..2004. It is also to be noted that the said sum of Rs.4682/- was paid to the agricultural loan which was availed by the complainant under Kisan Credit Card Account. Admittedly there was a balance of Rs.9118/- under NND Account by the end of March 2004. The complainant deposited Rs.4682/- on 25..3..2004 and he also remitted another sum of Rs.16,314/- on 27..5..2004. Thereby, as on 27..5..2004 there was only a balance of Rs.8734/- due to the bank from the complainant under the agricultural loan. Ext.A2 Kisan Credit Card would make the position more clear. It is to be noted that on 27..5..2004 a sum of Rs.9118/- was outstanding under the NND Account. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was repeatedly requesting the opposite party to permit him to withdraw the sum of Rs.9118/- due under the NND account and also to close the agricultural loan. The Forum below has rightly held that if the complainant was permitted to close the NND account on 27..5..04 there would not have been any balance due under the agricultural loan. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the complainant had even requested the opposite party to close the NND account and to adjust the said amount towards the agricultural loan account; but the opposite party neglected to adopt such a course. The opposite party much relied on Exts.B1 and B2 circular and memo issued by the bank and did not permit the complainant to withdraw or close the NND account. 6. Ext.B1 is the circular No:142/98 dated:23..12..1998 issued by the South Malabar Gramin Bank head office. It was issued to the branches for facilitating the branches of the bank to transfer the amount due under the NND deposit account to loan account. Ext.B1 circular would show that only after one year from opening of the NND account the transfer will be permitted. It is also to be noted that B1 was issued with respect to NND accounts which are linked to loan accounts. But as far as the NND account of the complainant is concerned it was not linked to loan account. It is to be noted that the loan account under Kisan Credit Card was taken in the year 2001 and the same was renewed after the lapse of 3 years. At the same time the NND account was opened on 20..3..2003. There is nothing on record to show that the agricultural loan was availed under the NND account deposit as collateral security. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant requested the opposite party to link the NND account with the loan account. 7. B2 memo dated:22..8..2002 was issued with respect to the loan linked accounts. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that B1 and B2 circular and memo cannot be made applicable in the case of the complainant. The case of the opposite party that the NND account was linked with in the loan account cannot be upheld. The mere fact that the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4682/- for the purpose of remitting the same to the agricultural loan account cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the NND account was linked with the loan account. The opposite party/bank had written the number of the loan account as KCC-584 in the NN Deposit passbook would not show that the said NN deposit account was linked with loan account. The argument of the appellant that the NND account was linked with the loan account cannot be believed or accepted for a moment. Had there been any such linking of the NND account with loan account there would have been such an endorsement or there would have been a request made by the complainant to that effect. In the absence of any such endorsement or request it can not be concluded that the NND account was linked with the agricultural loan account. So, the appellant/opposite party cannot be justified in treating the NND account as one linked with the agricultural loan account. If that be so, the opposite party was negligent in its action of not permitting the complainant to withdraw the amount from the NND account and to close the loan account. The aforesaid negligence would amount to deficiency of service. 8. The Forum below has considered all the relevant aspects of the case and rightly concluded that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the Branch Manager, South Malabar Gramin Bank, Thazhekkode Branch. The facts, circumstances and evidence on record would show that the complainant has suffered financial loss and the said deficiency has also caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. The Forum below can be justified in exempting the complainant from paying Rs.1130/- to the opposite party. It is to be noted that the Forum below has rightly held that the complainant cannot be compelled to pay interest on the agricultural loan amount from 27..5..2004. In fact on 27..5..2004 there was only the balance of Rs.8734/- due to the bank under the agricultural loan account. But at the same time on 27..5..2004 a sum of Rs.9118/- was due to the complainant from the bank under the NN deposit. If that be so, balance amount was due from the bank to the complainant. Thus, the Forum below is perfectly justified in exempting the complainant from payment of interest on the loan account with effect from 27..5..2004. The aforesaid order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld. 9. The Forum below has also awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- by way of monetary loss and a sum of Rs.2000/- under the head mental agony. It is to be noted that the monetary loss has been compensated by exempting the complainant from payment of interest and also by exempting the complainant from paying a sum of Rs.1130/-. If that be so, the compensation of Rs.3000/- ordered under the head monetary loss cannot be upheld. This Commission is of the view that the further compensation of Rs.3000/- under the head monetary loss is an unwarranted one. Hence the same is quashed. But the compensation of Rs.2000/- under the head mental agony can be justified. There can be no doubt about the fact that the complainant suffered mental agony due to the negative approach adopted by the opposite party. So, the compensation of Rs.2000/- ordered by the Forum below under the head mental agony is confirmed. The Forum below is also justified in awarding cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified to the effect that the compensation of Rs.3000/- under the head monetary loss is quashed. In all other respects, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed to the limited extent that the compensation of Rs.3000/- ordered by the Forum below under the head monetary loss is set aside. But the impugned order passed by the Forum below in all other respects is confirmed. The impugned order is modified as indicated above. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
