Vizianagaram Co-operative (Urban) Bank

**adv.singh** · 02-01-2010, 10:07 AM

C.C.NO.51/2009
Between :
1. Sri Behara Venkateswara Rao,

S/o Late Venkata Ramanayya,

69 years, R/o Door No.19-8/1/5,

Anandapeta, Kanukurthi Vari Street,

Vizianagaram.

2. Smt Behara Uma Parvathi,

W/o Venkateswara Rao,

60 years, House wife,

R/o Door No.19-8/1/5,

Anandapeta, Kanukurthi Vari street,

Vizianagaram. --- Complainants.

And :
1 The Secretary,

The Vizianagaram Co-operative (Urban) Bank Ltd.,

No.1358, A.G.Road, Vizianagaram.

2. The Branch Manager,

The Vizianagaram Co-operative (Urban) Bank Ltd.,

No.1358, A.G.Road, Vizianagaram. --- Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.Suryanarayana Murthy and Sri A.Vasudev, Advocates for Complainants and of Sri Ch.Rambabu and Sri P.Dhananjaya Rao, Advocates for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, praying this Fora to direct the opposite parties to pay the amounts covered under fixed deposit receipts dated 24-10-2006 with interest at 24% per annum from the date of Maturity till the date of payment and further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and costs of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant further submits that they deposited a sum of Rs.49,500/- and Rs.22,562/- on 24-10-2006 . The maturity value is also Rs.49,500/- and Rs.22,562/-respectively as the opposite party agreed to pay accrued interest to the complainants’ Savings Bank Account which is with the 1st opposite party Branch. Even after due date i.e., 24-11-2007 the said amount was not paid and opposite party requested the complainant to renew the same for another six months. Accordingly the same was renewed. After due date the amounts were not paid. Hence this complaint.

The 1st Opposite party filed counter and the 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party denying all the allegations mentioned in the complaint except those which are not specifically traversed herein and put the complainants to strict proof and denied all other allegations and further submits that as per the Directions of the Reserve Bank of India under Section 36 (1) (a) the Bank is astopped from accepting new deposit and new deposits and more so due to non payment of the fixed deposit amounts kept with Vasavi Co-operative Bank, Hyderabad. The opposite party has no sufficient cash to meet the need of the depositors. There are absolutely no bonafides on the part of the complainants. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Both parties filed evidence affidavits to establish their respective contentions and filed documents.

Heard both sides perused the material available on record and other material we are passing the following Order.

Admittedly the complainant opened an account with the opposite party and also took two fixed deposit receipts for Rs.49,500/- and Rs.22,562/- dated 24-10-2006 for a period of thirteen months and the same was renewed further. Even after that renewal, the amount was not paid by opposite parties as such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. The contention of the opposite parties is that the Reserve Bank of India under Section 36(1)(a) the Bank astopped from accepting new deposit and new deposits and more so due to non payment of the fixed deposit amounts kept with Vasavi Co-operative Bank, Hyderabad. The said contention cannot be given any way because admittedly the complainant deposited the amounts with the opposite parties. It is obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to return the amounts on the due dates, simply because sufficient funds are not available with the opposite parties, on that ground this is the claim of the complainant cannot be dismissed. On the other hand, there is no material produced by the opposite parties they are not having sufficient funds to pay the amounts covered by the complaint. The act of the opposite parties i.e., non payment of the amounts to the complainants amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.49,500/- (Rupees forty nine thousand and five hundred only) to the 1st complainant and Rs.22,562/- (Rupees twenty two thousand five hundred and sixty two only) to the 2nd complainant, with interest at 9% per annum from the due date till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the 1st complainant and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the 2nd complainant towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) inclusive of advocate fee is Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 13th day of November, 2009.

**adv.singh** · 02-01-2010, 10:20 AM

C.C.NO.52/2009

Between :

1. Behara Venkateswara Rao

S/o late Venkata Ramanayya, 69 years,

Residing at Dr.No:19-8-1/5,

R/o Anandapeta, Kanukurthi Vari Street,

Vizianagaram.

2. Behara Venkata Uma Maheswara Rao,

S/o Venkateswara Rao,

39 years, R/o Anandapeta, Kanukurthi Vari Street,

Vizianagaram. --- Complainants.

And :

1. The Secretary,

The Vizianagaram Co-operative (Urban) Bank Ltd.,

No.1358, A.G.Road, Vizianagaram.

2. The Branch Manager,

The Vizianagaram Co-operative (Urban) Bank Ltd.,

A.G.Road, Vizianagaram. --- Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.Suryanarayana Murthy and Sri A.Vasudev, Advocates for Complainants and of Sri Ch.Rambabu and Sri P.Dhananjaya Rao, Advocates for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount payable under Savings Bank Account lying as on 10-11-2008 together with interest at 34% p.a. from the date of last payment till the date of payment and further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complainant and to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper.

The complainants submit that by the end of November 2008 i.e., 10-11-2008 a sum of Rs.50,213-16p.s was lying to the credit of Complainant in the opposite parties account books. The complainants wanted to shift the residence to Hyderabad. The complainants submit that both approached the opposite parties and requested for payment, but they refused and postponed payment on one pretext or the other. They are bound to pay the amount but fails to pay the same. As such it amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-. Hence this petition.

The 1st opposite party filed his counter and the 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter of 1st opposite party. In the counter of 1st opposite party denied all the allegations as not true and correct. The 1st opposite party admitted that the complainants are having Joint Savings Bank Account with the opposite parties. The complainant withdrawing the amount from the bank. The agreed rate of interest on Savings Bank Account is 3.5% p.a. and the periodical accrued interest is being credited to the account of the complainants. Thus the claim of the complainants that they are entitled to interest at the rate of 24% p.a. is not tenable. The opposite parties are ready to continue the same method. The opposite parties submit that when they intimated the financial crisis of the bank to the complainants they in turn agreed to receive the balance amount in easy installments and accordingly, they have been withdrawing around Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. As there is no change in the financial returns of the bank, the opposite parties are ready to continue the same method. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the entire material available on record and other material. We are satisfied and passed the following.

Admittedly, the complainant opened a joint account with the 1st opposite party. The opposite party submits that the complainant withdrawing the amount up to Rs.5,000/- or so. Due to financial problems to the opposite parties they evolve the scheme in which the complainant and other depositors permitted to withdraw Rs.5,000/- but as seen from the record, no such withdrawals. It is clearly shows that the opposite parties are not allowing the complainant to withdraw any amount from the account. The complainants are having joint account under Savings Bank Account No:1977 with the opposite parties bank for the last several years. The complainants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount as needed by them, evolving the scheme with the consent of the complainants and other depositors, is not established by filing all the documents in to the Forum. As such non payment of the amount to the complainants, amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice. The opposite parties are directed to return the entire amount lying in the account of the complainants as and when requested by them. The opposite parties caused much hardship and inconvenience to the complainants, as such the complainants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards compensation. The entire amount shall be paid within one month from this day.

In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay the amount payable in savings bank account lying as on 10-11-2008 together with interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing complaint till the date of realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) which includes Advocate fee of Rs.500/-. Comply with the order within two months.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced us in the open Forum, this the 10th day of November, 2009.