Karnataka

Kolar

CC/21/2014

Jayamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.S.S.N Bank & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Sathish Kumar

31 Jan 2015

ORDER

  Date of  Filing : 12.05.2014

  Date of Order  : 31.01.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated 31^st  JANUARY 2015

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM           …….      PRESIDENT

Sri. H.JANARDHAN                         ……..     MEMBER

 

CC No. 21 / 2014

 

Smt. Jayamma,

W/o. late. Byrappa,

Aged about 55 years,

R/at; Kota Ramagollahalli Village,

Yalesandra Post,

Budikote Hobli,

Bangarpet Taluk.

 

 

 (By Sri R. Sathish, Adv.)                                        ……. Complainant

 

V/s.

 

 

1.  The Manager,

Budikote V.S.S.N. Bank Niyamitha,

Budikote,

Bangarpet Taluk.

 

 

2. The Secretary/Authorized Officer,

Budikote V.S.S.N. Bank Niyamitha,

Budikote,

Bangarpet Taluk.

 

 

(By Sri S.C. Venkatachalapathi  Adv.)         …… Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

By Sri. SYED ANSER KALEEM,  PRESIDENT

 

This Complainant has filed this Complaint OPs U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Ops and alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and praying to pass an order directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,622/- along with interest and costs. 

 

2.       The accusation of the Complaint is that, OP No.1 and 2 are the official representatives of the Budikote Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Bank Niyamitha Budikote, which is registered under Co-Operative Societies Act and governed by the Banking Laws.    The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- as a Fixed Deposit for a period of 66 months on 07.03.2003 and the Ops agreed to pay back the said amount in deposit along with accrued interest  on the date of maturity i.e. on 08.09.2008 and the amount payable on maturity  Rs.1,01,055/-.   The complainant further states that after the expiry of maturity period on the said F.D.,  approached the Ops to claim the said deposited amount on its maturity, but for the one or the other reasons Ops are postponing to return the matured amount.     The complainant further submits that, she had visited the respondent Bank several times and made efforts to get the maturity amount on F.D., but it went in vain, then complainant got issued the legal notice through RPAD, but they have not replied to said notice nor paid the amount in deposit.      Hence the complainant alleges the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and filed this Complaint. 

 

3.       Upon service of notice on OPs and the OPs have appeared before this Forum and filed their version.   In its version OPs  admitted that she had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as a Fixed Deposit for a period of 66 months on 07.03.2003 and the date of maturity being 08.09.2008, amount payable is Rs.1,01,055/-.      OPs contended that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and she has filed the present complaint before this Forum after lapse of 06 years, hence the complaint is barred by limitation.  Hence, OPs pray to dismiss the Complaint.

 

4.       To substantiate the case of the respective parties, complainant filed her affidavit evidence along with copies of documents, whereas the Ops though filed the version did not file the affidavit evidence on its behalf.  On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the following points will arisen for our consideration.

 

(i)      Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(ii)     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief?

 

(iii)    What Order ?

 

    5.   Heard the arguments of the parties and perused the evidence and materials placed before us and our answer to the above points are as follows:

 

(i)      In the affirmative

 

(ii)     In the affirmative

 

(iii)    As per final order

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

6.       Point No. (i) & (ii)  – On perusing the pleadings and evidence placed before us, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- as  Fixed Deposit for a period of 66 months on 07.03.2003 with the Ops Bank.   On perusing the Fixed Deposit bond it clearly discloses that the complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- and the Ops agreed to pay back the said amount with accrued interest on the date of maturity i.e.  on 08.09.2008 and on maturity amount payable to the beneficiary is of Rs.1,01,055/-.   It is astonishing fact to note that, the Ops being the service provider to its customers by forgetting its duties and obligations baldly denied the allegations of the complainant in its version without minding the consequences.    In order to prove the case of the complainant and the complainant filed her affidavit evidence along with the documents.   Whereas, Ops filed its version but not choose to file affidavit evidence or not come forward to even to tender the oral evidence.   The law mandates that parties to the case, in order to prove their case they should file either oral evidence or the affidavit evidence.    In this case, the Ops only filed the version and the version cannot be considered as evidence.   Any amount of pleadings cannot substitute to the evidence.  It is worthy to mention that, though Ops issued themselves the Fixed Deposit Bond and baldly denying the same, it shows the very act of the Ops is highly deplorable one.  Furthermore, the Ops contended that in its version that complaint is filed after lapse of 06 years and taken the contention of barred by limitation.    Whenever the amount kept in deposit on its maturity the Ops have to return the amount with accrued interest to the complainant.   The Ops failed to show why they are not returned the amount in question to the complainant subsequently its maturity and also not produced any document to show regarding their bonafides attempts to pay back the said amount in deposit.    Till the amount in deposit is with the Ops, the cause of action to bring the complainant continuously running till the repayment.   Hence, the contention of the Ops cannot be acceptable one.   The non payment of the amount even filing of the complaint taking stand of limitation shows that the conduct of the Ops is  highly deplorable one  and made the complainant to wander from pillar to post and for which Ops are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, it will meet the ends of justice.   In the light of above discussions, we accordingly hold answer point (i)  & (ii) in affirmative.

 

7.       Point No. (iii) –  In the result, we proceed to pass the following order:

 

ORDER

 

1.       Complaint is allowed in part with cost.

 

2.       Ops are jointly & severally liable to pay Rs.1,01,055/- to the complainant  and in addition to the above said amount Ops are directed to pay interest at the rate of 13% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of realization within 30 days from the date of this Order. 

 

3.       Ops are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

 

          4.   OPs are directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

 

5.       OPs are directed to submit compliance report.

         

6.       Send free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, the 31^st  January 2015.

 

 

 

 

             MEMBER                                PRESIDENT