Bandaru Srilatha @ Mogili Srilatha,

W/o M. Srinivasa Rao,

R/o Ganganammapet,

Tenali,

Guntur district. … Complainant

The Guntur Co-operative Urban Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

3/2 Brodipet,

Guntur. … Opposite party

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L. Radhakrishna Murhty, Member:- This complaint is filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.24,824/- from 21-2-2000 to 21-08-07 (at 22% on principle amount of Rs.5,000/-) and further interest at 18% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization and also to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards physical and mental agony and for costs of the petition.

The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows, the complainant has joined as a member in the opposite party bank on 21-2-2000. The opposite party issued a share certificate b.No.14658 in favour of complainant for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 200 shares of Rs.25/- each on 21-2-2000. Inspite of repeated oral demands, the opposite party did not pay the value of the said share certificates to the complainant. On 23-03-05 the complainant issued a requisition letter to the opposite party to return the amount covered under the said share certificate. In respect of the said letter there is no reply or any action by the opposite party. Hence, the complaint for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

The opposite party filed its version which in brief is as follows:

The averments made in the complaint are all false and the complaint is not maintainable either in Law or on facts. As per the Bye-Laws of the bank (opposite party) the complainant or any other share holder will be entitled to the dividend declared periodically and the same accrues to the shares held by the share holder.

The share holders are not entitled to any interest over the shares held by them either in Law or facts and even as per the rules and regulations and Bye-Laws governing the bank. The opposite party is waiting for the final disposal of the appeal preferred against the award dated 31-03-06 in CD.310/05 and interim stay has been granted by the State Commission in the said appeal. There are absolutely no latches, delay, negligence or intentional with-holding of the share amount of the complainant by the opposite party.

The opposite party is ready to pay the share amount with accrued dividend as declared periodically as permitted by Reserve Bank of India. The complainant is not at loss at any stretch of imagination as declared dividend accrued on the shares of the complainant. Complainant is not entitled to any interest on the shares as claimed. The complainant having availed loan from the opposite party, failed to discharge the same which lead the bank to follow the procedure legally envisaged and any procedural delay cannot be termed as deficiency of service.

The CD.310/05 filed by the complainant is in appeal before the State Commission in FA.IA. No.2520/06 in FA(SR)No.4468/06 and is sub-judice. The stay granted is still in force and the amount directed to be deposited has been duly deposited and the complainant also sought for grant of cheque therein. The bank has got right of lien as against the shares as per Bye-Laws for the amounts due to it. Therefore, in the light of the above circumstances the complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant filed her affidavit in respect of her contentions reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint.

The opposite party also filed affidavit in respect of its version reiterating the facts mentioned in the version. In addition to it the opposite party added that the appeal FA.No.297/08 was allowed by the State Commission on 20-2-08 and the CD 310/05 was remanded to the District Forum. The said CD 310/05 was posted for orders after haring the arguments.

The complainant in respect of her case got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. Ex.A-1 is the share certificate issued in favour of complainant by the opposite party on 21-2-2000 for Rs.5,000/- towards the value of 200 shares of Rs.25/- each. Ex.A-2 is the letter addressed to the opposite party for the return of the value of 200 shares. Ex.A-3 is the another letter addressed to the opposite party by the complainant on 16-6-05 for return of the value of her 200 shares. Ex.A-4 to A-6 are the courier receipts. Ex.A-7 is the INUITY bond relating to Rs.2,00,000/- loan obtained by the complainant from the opposite party. Ex.A-8 is the statement of account from 21-2-2000 to 31-3-07 for the loan obtained by the complainant from the opposite party.

Now the points for determination are that

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts as sought for?
2. To what extent?

POINTS 1&2

It is not in dispute that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party and failed to discharge the outstanding due amount under the said loan and thereupon the opposite party as per the rules of the bank auctioned the site pledged by the complainant for due discharge of the loan obtained by her under the INUITY bond vide Ex.A-7. It is also admitted fact that the complainant was issued a share certificate for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the value of 200 shares of Rs.25/-.

The complainant filed CC.No.310/05 before this Forum for payment of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation against the opposite party regarding the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- obtained by her from the opposite party on the ground that the opposite party has sold 311 square yards of site instead of 350 square yards in the public auction and caused loss to her. The said CC was disposed by this Forum on 10-07-08, wherein the complainant was directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.19,581/- to the opposite party bank within a period of two months.

As a matter of fact the present complainant has filed CC.No.310/05 against this opposite party raising dispute that it sold away her mortgaged property to lesser extent and that too under valued in auction as such she was put to so much loss. This apart she also raised dispute about maintenance of account by the concerned bank. On making enquiry about on all theses issues and Forum found that the bank acted bonafide and under reasonable belief it auctioned the land to whatever extent it was mortgaged and that there was no under valuation in conducting auction proceedings.

It is also observed that if the complainant herein was not satisfied with the findings given in the aforesaid manner she may resort to a civil suit. It is also observed that as per the orders of State Commission in the above referred matter she has with drawn sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as against the amount lying to the credit of her account to the tune of Rs.2,18,490/-. Thus finally she has withdrawn excess amount of Rs.19,581/-. A direction was given therein for refund of the same to the bank within a period of two months failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till it is paid.

Thus the payment of Rs.19,581/- by the complainant is altogether a different issue. The said amount is not on account of debt arising out of the mortgaged land. As there is an order to that effect the opposite party may have recourse to realize the same from the complainant. Pending release of the same, the opposite party cannot withhold the value of share certificate as sought for by the complainant herein. Admittedly she is holding share certificate of the value of Rs.5000/- from the period 21-02-2000 onwards. Of course the complainant is also claiming interest @22% p.a. from the said date till the date of filing of complaint and also sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony having suffered pain.

It is the contention of learned counsel for opposite party that as per the guidelines fixed by Reserve Bank of India and their rules ‘no share holder is entitled for interest amount except dividend that has been declared from time to time’. Therefore, the opposite party is hereby directed to pay dividend itself as declared from time to time along with principal amount of Rs.5000/-. In the aforesaid set of circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is no way entitled for compensation as prayed for as the litigation was pending recently vide CC No.310/05. The points are answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the value of the share certificate together with the dividends declared and accrued thereon periodically from 21-02-2000, the date of certificate till the date of realization.

2. Further, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs of the litigation.

3. The opposite party is directed to pay the aforesaid amounts within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.