Date of Filing: 07.10.2016
Date of Order:04.06.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., L.L.B., MEMBER
ON THIS THE TUESDAY THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2019
C.C.No.91 /2017
Between
Sri .Prasad,Engineering contractor,
S/o.Sri Vekatappiah,
Aged about 53 Years, H.No.12-5-59,
Flat No.101. Padmaraag Apartments,
Vijayapuri Colony, Tarnaka , Secunderabad. ……Complainant
And
- General Manager, Zonal Office,
Corporation Bank, 5-9-88/02,
First Floor, Saphire Complex,
Chapel Road, Hyderabad.
2. Manager (Customer Care),
Corporation Bank, Toopran Branch,
Medak District, Telangana State.
- Sr. Manager, Marketing,
Corporation Bank, Marketing Division,
Corporate Office, Mangala Devi Temple Road,
Pandeshwar, Mangalore – 575001. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainants : Sri J.T.Sastry
Counsel for the Opposite Party : M.S.Anwar Siddiqui.
O R D E R
(By Sri. P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of Consumer
Protection . Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
2) The complaint averments in brief are that the complainant in order to participate in gauge conversion tenders obtained 2 FDRs from opposite party No.2 bank for Rs.25,000/- each on 26.8.1996. The interest payable on these FDRs at 10% p.a. He deposited the 2 FDRs with Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad in a work contract . The complainant sought arbitration of claim through Arbitral Tribunal which concluded its proceedings and finalized and award was published on 30.3.2015. In the mean while South Western Railway was formed and castle Rock - Kule Section under Hubli Division was transferred to South Western Railway . Hence complainant’s 2 FDRs were transferred to South Central Railway, Secunderabad ,construction.
On 31.2.2015 Deputy Chief Engineer, Works in Chief Administrative officer , South Western Railway dispatched the 2 FDRs to complainant and return to him. The complainant addressed a letter to opposite party No.2 bank on 20.10.2015 and submitted the documents to arrange payment against the FDRs and later sent remainder letters dt.9.12.2015, 1.2.2016 and 20.2.2016. But there was no response. Hence he approached Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank at Secretariat Road, Hyderabad with a complaint dt. 1.3.2016 for non payment of FDR amount. He received a reply from Banking Ombudsman dt,. 10.5.2016 informing him that the bank would consider the case after getting clearance . It is further stated in the said reply that the complainant may approach the bank for further resolution and he can approach any other legal forum for redressal of his grievance.
The complainant was orally informed by opposite party No.2 bank that clearance from head office is waited . Complainant by a letter dt. 26.5.2016 approached opposite party NO.3 explaining the facts and sought instructions to opposite party o.2 to honour FDRs immediately. There was no response to the said letter
The opposite parties by not paying the amount denied his legitimate value on the amount of the FDRs. He has subjected to put hardship and untold mental agony. Failure to respond to the lette’rs by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service apart from breach of contract relating to FDRs. Hence the present complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay value of FDR No.155/400/96 dt.26.8.1996 with 10% interest for one year being Rs.27,500/- dt. 26.8.1996 and other FDR No.153218/159/96 dated 26.8.1996 with 10% of interest for one year totally being Rs.27,500/- and award 10% on both the FDR amounts from 27.8.1997 - 31.8.2015 the date of deposit of FDR by Railway which amount comes to 2,55,795/- and award interest from 1.9.2015 to the date of complaint to the date of filing of complaint at 10% p.a. and interest at 18% from the date of realization and to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
3) A common written version is filed for opposite parties 1,2 and 3 denying the liability to the claim of the complainant. The contest of the opposite parties is that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The opposite parties have no knowledge of deposit of 2 FDRs by with the office of the South Western Railways till the complainant brought the said fact to their notice by the letters dated 20.10.2015, 9.12.2015, 1.2.2016 and 20.2.2016. The allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties failed to respond to his request is not correct.
The above said deposits were made for a period of one year and are due on 26.8.1997. The deposits were transferred to Reserve Bank of India DEAF-GL from virtue status and the opposite party No.2 sought permission to deposit DEAF-GL and sought time for making payment to the complainant At no point of time there was willful or wanton delay or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties .
Pursuant to the approval from the Head office the opposite party No.3 prepared 2 Demand Drafts for Rs.44,106 and Rs. 29,548/- in the name of the complainant by calculating the interest rate of the prevailing Savings Bank Account. The opposite party No.3 addressed a letter to the complainant on 22.2.2017 asking him to collect the Demand Drafts but there was no response from him. Hence the Demand Drafts were sent to the complainant by Registered Post and complainant having received the same and addressed a letter on 4.3.2017 to opposite party No.3 raising issue of 10% interest for the entire period which is purely imaginary one.
The bank did not receive instructions from the complainant for renewal of the FDRs therefore in normal course it became DEAF-GL status. As such there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hor’ble National Commission in the Case of Smt. Manorama Vs. Chairman, Punhab National Bank reported in 2004 CPJ 56 held that calculating prevailing rate of interest on Savings Bank Account for the period alleged FDRs held by opposite parties and complainant also acknowledge about the receipt of the Demand drafts not entitled to any further relief as claimed . Hence the complaint is deserves to be dismissed.
4) In the enquiry stage the complainant got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts narrated in the complaint. He also got exhibited 11 documents. Similarly for the opposite parties evidence affidavit of one Sri B,V.N.S. Pankaj Kalyani, stated to be Branch Manager of the opposite party No.2 , is got filed and it is in line with the defense set out in the written version filed. Through her 3 documents are exhibited on behalf of the opposite parties. Both sides filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
5) On a consideration of material on record the following points have emerged for determination:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled interest at 10% p.a. on the FDR amount from the date of maturity to the date of payment ?
- To what relief?
6) Point No.1: Obtaining of 2 FDRs by the complainant from opposite party No.2 bank for Rs.25,000/- each on 26.8.1996 for a period of one year is not in dispute. The case of the complainant is in order to participate in tender contract work of Railway. he obtained these 2 FDRs. Hence he deposited both the FDRs with Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad . His case is that after completion of the work and termination of the award proceedings the FDRs are released to him by South Western Railway Authorities on 31.8.2015. Hence he submitted FDRs to opposite party No.2 to arrange payment with interest accrued to them. The defense of the opposite parties is the maturity period of FDR was one year thereafter FDRs were not renewed by the complainant and due date was 6.8.1997 because of the overdue status deposits were transferred to RBI and DEAF-GL and soon after receipt of the request from the complainant with the original FDR for encashment made efforts and since records were very old and required permission from the Higher Authorities, hence delay was caused. Soon after receipt of the permission DDs were obtained on FDR amount with interest at prevailing Savings Bank rate. So there is no intentional delay on the part of the opposite parties in paying the amount due to the complainant in the 2 FDRs . Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
7)Point No.2:- The main claim of the complainant is he is entitled for the interest at 10% p.a. on the FDR amount till the date of payment of the amount to him. As rightly pointed out by the opposite parties there was no renewal of the FDRs by the complainant from time to time till the completion of his contract works and finalization and publication of the award by the arbitrator. The opposite parties are not parties to the so called contract work between the complainant and South Central Railway. Hence opposite parties are not aware of the reasons for the complainant not to ask for the FDR amount or renewal of the same. What prevented the complainant to seek renewal of the FDR till the original FDRs are released to him is not explained. The bank is not liable to pay the interest at the FDR rate of 10% for all these years. The case law on this aspect is relied by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is in the case of Smt. Manorama Vs. Chairman, Punjab National Bank reported in 2004, CPJ 56 . “ It is held by their Lord Ships that after maturity to be based it became a deposit account. Bank enjoyed this money ever since its maturity and the depositor is entitled for interest money was with bank and making that depositor is entitled his interest at the prevailing rates as savings bank rate of interest from time to time worked on simple interest basis till the date of payment made to the depositor. In the said case also FDR cannot be renewed as the laps is on the part of the complainant . Therefore the complainant was not entitled to get any interest till 25.11.1988 but he became entitled for interest at Savings Bank rate of interest from 25.11.1988 till the date of completion which was filed on 9.12.1997. Similarly in the present case earlier the complainant has renewed the FDR from time to time. Hence is entitled for the interest at 10% p.a. from the date of maturity to the date of payment. In the light of the case law in the above decision the complaint of the complainant has failed. Accordingly the point is answered.
6) In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno , transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on the 4th day of June, 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Copy of Kshema Nidhi Cash Certificate dt.26.7.1997.
Ex.A2 – Fixed deposit receipt dt. 2.1996
Ex.A3 & A6 – Copy of letters to the opposite parties by the complainant
Ex.A7& A8 –copy of letter from South Western Railway to the complainant.
Ex.A9 – Copy of letter to the opposite parties by the complainant.
Ex.A10 -Copy of letter from Banking Ombudsman, dt.10.5.2016.
Ex.A11 - Copy of letter to the opposite parties by the complainant
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B.1 - Xerox copies of D Ds.dt.1.5.2016
Ex.B2 – Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B3 – Copy of issue of Power of Attorney to Ms. Pankaja Kalyani
B.V.N.S.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
