Miss RuchikaD/o Sh. Yadvender Singh Chauhan,

R/o Mohalla Amarpur, Nahan Distt. Sirmour.



… Complainant.

Versus





M/s Vee Ess Communications,

Cooperative Bank The Mall, Nahan,

Distt. Sirmaur, H.P.

Through its Prop. Sh. Vishal Tomar

S/o Sh. Rupinder Singh Tomar.

… Opposite party.

………………………………………………………………………..








O R D E R:



The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he purchased a telephone set, i.e. Walky-FM from the OP, on, 08.05.2007, for a sale consideration of Rs.1850/-, which developed defects, inasmuch, as, FM radio was not working properly, hence, handed over the said set to the OP No.1, for repairs, who did not return the said set to him after repairs. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP No.1, filed reply to the complaint, and denied the entire allegations, leveled against it, by the complainant, hence, sought dismissal of the complaint, their being no deficiency in service on its part.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP No.1, having sold to him a defective instrument, on, 08.05.2007, inasmuch, as, there was a shortcoming in it, through, promised not to be existing in the warranty card. A perusal of the warranty card placed on record does reveal the fact that the instrument, as purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1, promised to the customer the service of FM radio. The complainant averred, that, for rectifying the defect, he, had handed over the set to the OP No.1, yet, no, proof of his having handed over the instrument to OP No.1, for rectification of the shortcoming, has, been placed on record. Yet when, the OP No.1 has, while contending that the instrument was not handed over to it, has placed on record, an abstract from the register maintained by him disclosing the receipts of goods received by him from customers for rectification of facts/ defects.

6. Nonetheless, the OP No.1, though, in, the heading of the abstract of the register maintained by it, of goods received for rectification of defects, is, of the month of March, 2007, yet, the dates, on, which, goods have been disclosed to have been received from various customers detailed in it, commence, from, the month of July, which, is, rather, misleading, as, it has not been maintained for the month of May, 2007, nor, also, since the dates as reflected in it, as stated above commence from the month of July, 2007, which, is, not the stage, when the instrument was purportedly handed over to the OP No.1, as admittedly, it had come to be handed over to the OP No.1, in the month of May, as such, the non-adduction of an abstract of the Register, by, the OP No.1, for, the month of May, when, the OP No.1 contend, that, they, maintain, a, Register reflecting the receipts of goods by them for rectification of defects, and since, it, comprised the best evidence, its withholding results in the inference that had it, been produced, it would have falsified the stand of the OP No.1.

7. Moreover, in the light of the exercise as indulged by the OP No.1, in denying the claim of the complainant, while relying upon a misleading document, it, has, to be concluded that the complainant did hand over the instrument to the OP No.1 for rectification, hence, in its not rectifying the defect, detected in it, the OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP No.1 to replace the defective instrument, with the new one of the same, make and model, failing which the OP No.1, shall be liable to refund the cost of the instrument to the complainant, i.e., amounting to Rs.1850/-. In addition to this, the OP No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for rendering him deficient service, as also, cost of litigation quantified at Rs.500/-. This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1, within a period of forty rive days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the contesting parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

K.K.Chandran,

Chandragiri, Complainant

P.O.Thottada,Chalakkunnu,Kannur.





1. Secretary,

Koyyod Service co.op.Bank,

P.O.Koyyod

2. Managing Director,

Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation, opposite parties

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.



.



O R D E R




This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The opposite parties jointly provided gas connection for domestic purpose. The opposite parties offered spot connection and regular supply of gas cylinders without any delay. When complainant approached the 1st opposite party he assured that 2nd opposite party will provide gas connection on deposit of Rs.5750/- and that will be refunded in the event of termination of the gas connection. Complainant paid Rs.5750/- and availed gas connection. But later on the supply of gas happened to be irregular as against the assurance of 1st opposite party. More over the supplied refilled gas cylinders were of substandard quality and quantity. Hence the complainant cancelled the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount. 1st opposite party was not ready to refund the amount and hence the complaint.

On receiving the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even though opposite parties served notices they were not cared to appear and to file their version before this Forum. The opposite parties subsequently called absent and set exparte

On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1, to A3.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant has stated in the complaint that he has availed gas connection from 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. The complainant was assured that the amount would be refunded at the time when the equipments are surrendered. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by 1st opposite party which proves that the complainant has taken gas connection from opposite parties by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. Ext.A2 is the connection certificate. Ext.A3 is the surrendering certificate which shows the complainant has surrendered two cylinders and one regulator to 1st opposite party. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.5750/- to the complainant. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant.

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/-(Rupees Five thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection Act.

Sri Gayadhar Jena, aged about 54(fifty four) years, S/o late Purna Chandra Jena, At/Po. Lalamba Dist. Bargarh-768102. ... ... ... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

1.

The Branch Manager, Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Godabhaga Branch, At/Po. Godabhaga Dist. Bargarh.
2.

The Secretary, Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Bargarh, At/po/ Dist. Bargarh.

... ... ... Opposite Parties.





-: J U D G E M E N T :-



The present complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Its brief history is as follows:-

The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only towards fixed deposit for a period of 10(ten) years on Dt. 10/04/1999 with the Opposite Party No.1(one) Bank on the assurance of the Opposite Party No.1(one) that the maturity amount would be Rs.35,942/-(Rupees thirty five thousand nine hundred forty two) only on completion of the maturity period of 10(ten) years. The Bank issued Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 004864 Dt. 10/04/1999. After 10(ten) years of the deposit, on advice of the Opposite Party No.1(one), the Complainant opened a Saving Bank Account wherein on Dt. 24/04/2009 the Bank deposited Rs. 23,000/-(Rupees twenty three thousand) only towards the maturity amount of the fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only made for 10(ten) years. The Complainant told the Opposite Party No.1(one) that the deposit being a long term one, it should have carried compound interest, the maturity amount totaling Rs. 35,942/-(Rupees thirty five thousand nine hundred forty two) only.


The Opposite Party No.1(one) told the Complainant that it will not be more than Rs. 23,000/-(Rupees twenty three thousand) only and consequently the Complainant feels that he has been cheated by the Bank. Hence he prays for payment of compound interest over his fixed deposit in question and pay back the balance amount of Rs.12,942/-(Rupees twelve thousand nine hundred forty two) only by the Opposite Parties along with Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only towards mental agony and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only.

The Opposite Parties, in their version, question the maintainability of the complaint as the dispute is triable by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies U/S 68 of O.C.S. Act. They deny that the Opposite Party No.1(one) told the Complainant on Dt. 13/04/1999 that the maturity amount of the deposit in question would be Rs. 35,942/-(Rupees thirty five thousand nine hundred forty two) only. It is clearly mentioned in the deposit receipt that 13%(thirteen percent) interest per annum be paid to the deposit amount.


The Opposite Parties contend that there are various investment schemes carrying different rate of interest and benefit to the depositor, as for example, in fixed deposit scheme simple interest will be paid on the fixed deposit amount monthly, quarterly, half yearly basis as per choice of the depositor and he (depositor) can withdraw the interest monthly/quarterly/half yearly for his use, but in cash certificate scheme interest will be compounded on quarterly basis on the deposit amount and maturity amount will be paid on or after due date. The depositor cannot encash the interest of the deposit amount before the period of maturity.

The Opposite Parties also claim that the Complaint is barred by limitation as the Complainant has received the fixed deposit receipt on Dt. 13/04/1999. They pray for dismissal of the complaint.

Perused the complaint the version of the Opposite Parties along with the copies of documents filed and find as follows:-

The Opposite Parties rendering banking service and the Complainant being a depositor for earning interest from such services, the complaint is very much triable by this Forum under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. The date of maturity of the fixed deposit being Dt.13/04/2009 the complaint is not barred by limitation.

The Opposite Parties take a denial plea that the Opposite Party No.1(one) ever told the Complainant that the maturity amount of the fixed deposit would be Rs. 35,942/-(Rupees thirty five thousand nine hundred forty two) only the fixed deposit receipt mentions “the sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only as a deposit @13%(thirteen percent) per annum”. At a simple interest of 13%(thirteen percent) per annum the maturity amount becomes Rs.23,000/-(Rupees twenty three thousand) only. The Opposite Parties contend in their version “ in cash certificate scheme interest will be compounded on quarterly, basis on the deposit amount and maturity amount will be paid on or after due date.


The depositor cannot encash the interest of the deposit amount before the period of maturity”. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) told him that the maturity amount of the fixed deposit of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only deposited for a period of 10(ten) years would be Rs.35,942/- (Rupees thirty five thousand nine hundred forty two) only. The Opposite Parties admit that in cash certificate scheme interest will be compounded on quarterly basis on the deposit amount and maturity amount will be paid on or after due date. The depositor cannot encash the interest of the deposit amount before the period of maturity.

Admittedly, the Complainant has got the maturity amount deposited in his Saving Bank Account only after the maturity date of the fixed deposit and he has never encashed the interest of the deposit amount before the date of maturity. No wonder, he is very much entitled to receive compound interest on the fixed deposit of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only made by him for a period of 10(ten) years, the deposit being a long term one and there being no encashment of the interest before the period of maturity which conforms with the bank's own cash certificate scheme. It is the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to tender just and proper advice to their customers as regards the investment they make which fetches the maximum benefit allowed under their own scheme.


The Opposite Party Bank by not doing so in the present case, has committed deficiency of service towards the Complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that he was told by the Opposite Party No.1 that the maturity amount of deposit would be Rs.35,942/- (Rupees thirty five thousand nine hundred forty two) only. The Fixed Deposit Receipt also does not mention the maturity amount which would enable the depositor to know about such amount.

In the result, the Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to refund to the Complainant Rs.12,942/-(Rupees twelve thousand nine hundred forty two)only, the balance amount as per compound interest on the deposited amount and cost/compensation Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only along with 9% (nine percent interest) on both the amount chargeable with effect from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. Dt.04/05/2009 within thirty days hence, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.

C.C.No.184/2009

K.K.Raghavan,

Kunimmal House,

Iriveri Complainant



1. Secretary,

Koyyod Service co.op.Bank,

P.O.P.O.Koyyod

2. Managing Director,

Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation, opposite parties

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.



.



O R D E R





This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The opposite parties jointly provided gas connection for domestic purpose. The opposite parties offered spot connection and regular supply of gas cylinders without any delay. When complainant approached the 1st opposite party he assured that 2nd opposite party will provide gas connection on deposit of Rs.5750/- and that will be refunded in the event of termination of the gas connection. Complainant paid Rs.5750/- and availed gas connection.


But later on the supply of gas happened to be irregular as against the assurance of 1st opposite party. Moreover the supplied refilled gas cylinders were of substandard quality and quantity. Hence the complainant cancelled the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount. 1st opposite party was not ready to refund the amount and hence the complaint.

On receiving the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even though opposite parties served notices they were not cared enough to appear and to file their version before this Forum. The opposite parties subsequently called absent and set exparte

On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of complainant as PW1and Exts.A1.and A2.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant has stated in the complaint that he has availed gas connection from 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. The complainant was assured that the amount would be refunded at the time when the equipments are surrendered. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by 1st opposite party which proves that the complainant has taken gas connection from opposite parties. Complainant stated that the opposite parties did not supply gas regularly. It is understandable that if there is no supply of gas that creates much trouble to those consumers of gas users.


When it was complained to 1st opposite party his explanation was that 2nd opposite party and Koldy petroleum are responsible for those troubles.. Ext.A2 is the surrendering certificate which shows that complainant has surrendered two cylinders and one regulator to 1st opposite party. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.5750/- to the complainant. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant.

K.K.Raghavan,

Kunimmal House,

Iriveri Complainant



1. Secretary,

Koyyod Service co.op.Bank,

P.O.P.O.Koyyod

2. Managing Director,

Kerala State Co.op.Consumer Federation, opposite parties

Gandhi Nagar, Kochi.



.



O R D E R





This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.5750/- with interest and cost

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The opposite parties jointly provided gas connection for domestic purpose. The opposite parties offered spot connection and regular supply of gas cylinders without any delay. When complainant approached the 1st opposite party he assured that 2nd opposite party will provide gas connection on deposit of Rs.5750/- and that will be refunded in the event of termination of the gas connection. Complainant paid Rs.5750/- and availed gas connection.


But later on the supply of gas happened to be irregular as against the assurance of 1st opposite party. Moreover the supplied refilled gas cylinders were of substandard quality and quantity. Hence the complainant cancelled the gas connection and asked for refund of the amount. 1st opposite party was not ready to refund the amount and hence the complaint.

On receiving the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even though opposite parties served notices they were not cared enough to appear and to file their version before this Forum. The opposite parties subsequently called absent and set exparte

On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of complainant as PW1and Exts.A1.and A2.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

The complainant has stated in the complaint that he has availed gas connection from 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5750/-. The complainant was assured that the amount would be refunded at the time when the equipments are surrendered. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by 1st opposite party which proves that the complainant has taken gas connection from opposite parties. Complainant stated that the opposite parties did not supply gas regularly. It is understandable that if there is no supply of gas that creates much trouble to those consumers of gas users.


When it was complained to 1st opposite party his explanation was that 2nd opposite party and Koldy petroleum are responsible for those troubles.. Ext.A2 is the surrendering certificate which shows that complainant has surrendered two cylinders and one regulator to 1st opposite party. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.5750/- to the complainant. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant.

Vasudevalu Naidu B.R.

No:3726, I Main Road,

Gayathrinagar,

Bangalore – 560 021.

…. Complainants.

V/s



Corporation Bank,

S.C.Road, Branch,

Anandarao Circle,

Bangalore – 560 009.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party – Corporation Bank to refund the deposit amounts with interest at 21% and also to pay compensation for the damages and mental agony reflected on the complainant.



2. The case of the complainant is as under:-

He had made the following Fixed Deposits with Opposite Party Bank:-

01. FD 416/94 for Rs. 49,000/-

02. FD 417/94 for Rs.49,000/-

03. KCC 377/94 for Rs.82,219/-

On presenting the Fixed Deposits receipts on different dates, the Bank refused payment on the ground that he was a partner and also a guarantor in respect of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- borrowed by M/s Sri Srinivasa Construction Company in O.D. Account No.290 on 14/03/1990. On 28/02/1995 the Bank sent a letter demanding Rs.46,62,709/- stating that the borrower Firm has not paid the amount as demanded in the notice dated 12/01/1995 and therefore the Bank has exercised right of lien in respect of the Deposits referred to above. He had filed complaint No.1480/1986 before this Forum and by the order dated 10/09/1998 the matter was decided in favour of Opposite Party. Before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, the Opposite Party had filed a suit in No.177/95 against the borrowing Firm and its partners and that case was also decided in favour of the Opposite Party and the recovery notice dated 15/04/1998 was issued for Rs.1,01,54,304/-.

Thereafter the Opposite Party recovered the said amount by attaching the Bank Account of Defendant No.4. The Opposite Party declined payment of F.D. amount to the complainant on 28/02/1995 stating that the complainant was a partner and was also a Guarantor. But the complainant was not a partner as on 28/02/995 as he had retired on 10/01/1992. He also ceased to be a Guarantor w.e.f. 13/02/1992 on which date M/s Sri. Srinivasa Construction Company was restructured, as intimated to the Opposite Party by Smt.T.Susheelamma, the continuing partner of the Firm. On 28/11/2008 he wrote to the Chairman of the Corporation Bank under the RTI (Right to Information Act) to furnish the details of the recovery made by the Opposite Party towards the amount due by M/s Sri.Srinivasa Construction Company. In response to the said letter, the Principal Information Officer of the Bank replied on 16/01/2009 stating that the matter is pending before the DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) and the proper course is to seek the information through the DRT and the information sought cannot be provided.

He filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 04/02/2009, but in vain. Thereafter he approached the DRT Authorities and got the copies of the memo dated 11/10/2002 filed by the Opposite Party Bank and the orders passed by the DRT thereon. From the details furnished in Para-6 of the complaint it is clear that the Opposite Party has not only recovered principal of Rs.25,00,000/-, but also Rs.83,14,434/- towards interest aggregating to Rs.1,08,14,434/- from the principal Borrowers. This recovery was made more than six years ago from the principal borrower. Therefore, the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.



3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complaint is barred by the principles of resjudicata. Earlier the complainant had filed complaint No.1480/1996 contending that the Opposite Party has failed to re-pay the amount on maturity under the Fixed Deposit receipts referred to in the complaint. The said complaint was dismissed by the order dated 10/09/1998. The complainant has not challenged the said order and therefore it has become final as such the complainant cannot file another complaint on the same set of facts. The deposits in question were adjusted to the loan account of M/s Sri. Srinivasa Construction Company, wherein the complainant was a Guarantor. Therefore, the complainant cannot contend that he is not liable to pay any amount to the Opposite Party.

The deposit in question was made for the loan availed by M/s Sri. Srinivasa Construction Company by creating lien in favour of the Bank. Since the borrower Company failed to make payment, the Bank exercised lien over the deposits and adjusted the amounts towards the loan account of M/s Sri.Srinivasa Construction Company. As per the orders of the DRT, the Bank has recovered Rs.1,08,14,434.89 through the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal. Even after adjustment of the deposits and the amount recovered, the company is still due certain sum to the Opposite Party. The contention that as on 13/02/1992, the complainant had ceased to be a Guarantor since the said Company was restructured is not sustainable in view of the fact that the Bank has not accepted the said fact and the complainant continued to be the Guarantor for the loan availed by the Company as stated above.

In the order passed by the DRT, it was made clear that the complainant was also liable to pay the dues of the Company and as such the complainant cannot contend that he is neither a partner nor a Guarantor for the loan availed by the Company. M/s Sri.Srinivasa Construction Company had filed complaint No.26/1996 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with regard to the adjustment of various other deposits. In that complaint, an application Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the complainant to implead him as a party to the proceedings. The State Commission dismissed the complaint by the order dated 12/08/2003. The Bank had exercised the lien over the deposits in question and adjusted the proceeds towards the loan account of the Company, wherein the complainant was a Guarantor for the said loan. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.



4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the version filed by the Opposite Party reiterating the statements in the complaint.



5. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.



6. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?



7. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

8. The fact that the complainant had invested certain amount with Opposite Party as Fixed Deposit as disclosed in the complaint is admitted. The fact that the complainant had earlier filed complaint No.1480/1996 seeking the same relief of payment of the amount due under the fixed deposit and the said complaint was dismissed on 10/09/1998 is also admitted. The complainant has produced the copy of the complaint in complaint No.1480/1996 so also the copy of the order dated 10/09/1998 passed in the said complaint. A reading of the order dated 10/09/1998 in the earlier complaint makes it clear that in that complaint also the Opposite Party contended that in respect of the loan raised by M/s Sri.Srinivasa Construction Company, for which the complainant was a Guarantor, the deposit made by the complainant was adjusted towards the loan amount due by the said Company by exercising right of lien.

The complainant has also produced the copy of the letter dated 28/02/1995 sent by the Bank demanding Rs.46,62,709/- due under the O.D.Account of M/s Sri.Srinivasa Construction Company and further intimating the complainant that the Bank is left with no other alternative than to exercise its right of set off/banker’s general lien in respect of the deposit in question. The Bank also informed the complainant that the Bank has exercised right of lien in respect of the deposit in question and advised the complainant not to present the deposit receipts for payment. The Bank also warned the complainant that in spite of the notice if the deposit receipts are presented for payment, the same will be returned. Therefore, in the letter dated 28/02/1995, the Bank clearly informed the complainant that the proceeds of the F.D. have been appropriated or adjusted towards the loan account of the Company since the complainant was a Guarantor for the said loan and also advised the complainant not to present the deposit receipts for payment.

It is subsequent to this notice the complainant filed the complaint No.1480/1996 and was unsuccessful. He did not challenge the order dated 10/09/1998 passed in the said complaint and therefore the order dismissing the said complaint has become final. When on the same set of facts, the claim of the complainant has been rejected in the earlier complaint, the complainant is not entitled to file a second complaint on the same set of facts. Therefore, as rightly contended by the Opposite Party the present complaint is barred by the principles of resjudicata. On this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the proceedings initiated by the Opposite Party Bank against the borrower Company as well as the Guarantors and about the recovery of the amount following the order passed by the DRT. When the Bank had adjusted the proceeds of the F.D. as long back as on 28/02/1995, the fact that the Bank has recovered the amount from the borrower Company as per the orders of the DRT will not indicate that the Bank has not appropriated the proceeds of the Fixed Deposits made by the complainant.

It is not even the case of the complainant that the Bank has not appropriated the proceeds of the Fixed Deposit towards the loan account of the Company. That being so, when the proceeds of the Fixed Deposit are already appropriated by the Bank exercising the right of lien as long as back in 1995, the complainant is not entitled to seek payment of the amount under the Fixed Deposit. Thus, we find no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Bank and held that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-


-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is DISMISSED. However, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Dear Sir,

Yesterday I went to Corporation Fort Branch to take the last three months statement of my saving account. I need that statement very urgently and request them to provide the same. They told me to seat and I wait there 2hrs. After that they informed me that for statement EVERY PAGE WILL BE CHARGE Rs.100. I need the statement that's why i paid them Rs.100 for each page of statement.

Can you inform me whether is it feasible to charge a account holder Rs.100 for per page statement. This is a ridiculous thing which they charge the consumer when consumer need the same in urgent. Kindly help me with a proper justification.

Kindly let me inform if you need my account no.



With Regards,
Sumanta Pal