IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 30th Day of April 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.146/2017
Devadas : Complainant
S/o Sankaran
Paravila Veedu
Kottiyam P.O, Kollam.
[By Adv.B.Chandra Lal]
V/s
Manager
Union Bank of India
Kottiyam Branch.
[By Adv.K.Raghu Varma]
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a case based on a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant is an ex-gulf employee having NRI A/c No.336702050 with the opposite party bank and also having an SBI A/c No.336702010016604. While the complainant was working abroad he used to sent amount to NRI A/c and also withdraw the amount from that account and used to make fixed deposit and also used to renew and re-invest the above fixed deposit. During the period 2012-16 the complainant was having 8 fixed deposit receipts. Out of the 8 fixed deposit receipts he entrusted one fixed deposit receipt to a lady Assistant Manager residing at Padappakkara for the purpose of renewing the same. But she has not returned the said fixed deposit receipt. The subsequent Manager Bhaskaran belongs to Kannur issued duplicate FD receipt in lieu of the lost one. The number of the said duplicate FD receipt is 3700-40853. The complainant has withdrawn the amount when the FD matured. Out of the remaining FD receipts only 6 alone were encashed. The complainant reinvested the encashed amount as FD No.373/455 on 19.10.12. However when the complainant approached the opposite party to encash the above FD along with FD receipts the opposite party Manager informed that there is no such deposit in the bank. The complainant has re-invested the amount involved in the FD receipt bearing No.373/455 and obtained original deposit re-investment certificate bearing No.B2044984 which is with the complainant. But the bank opposite party has informed the complainant that no such deposit with the bank. The above act of the opposite party is deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed a petition before the Manager, Kottiyam Branch, but no favorable action has been taken by the said Branch Manager. Hence the complainant approached Banking Ombudsman. But the said Banking Ombudsman closed the complaint on 02.05.17 by stating “however you are at liberty to approach any other Forum for redressal of your grievance”. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,74,742/- being the amount covered by FD receipt bearing No.2044984 along with interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment of the amount @ 17% p.a. It is further alleged that the hard earned money deposited by the opposite party bank has not been returned. Hence the complainant sustained much mental agony apart from financial loss. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also entitled to get costs Rs.5000/-. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party resisted the complaint with tooth and nail by raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it has been filed experimentally with the ulterior motive to make wrongful gain to the complainant by causing wrongful loss to the opposite party bank without any bonafides and truth and in suppression of material facts. The opposite party bank would admit that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.10.2000 vide FD Receipt No.B2044984 and on maturity the same was reinvested from time to time. But when the accounts of the bank are computerized new deposit number was allotted and the same is 373/455. Similarly the complainant had another fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- vide F.D Receipt No.B2044985 and the same was also reinvested from time to time and the new deposit number 372/453 was allotted to the complainant. The complainant had availed a loan on the security of the FD deposit No.373/455 and on the closure of the loan a duplicate deposit receipt No.373/40853 was issued to him and he had closed the said account on 18.07.2016 and the amount was credited into his S.B A/c No.336702010016604 and on 20.07.2016 the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- vide cheque No.2094384. The other deposit was prematurely closed by him on 11.04.2016 and an amount of Rs.2,68,724/- was credited into his SB A/c No.336702010016604 and the complainant on 18.04.2016 had withdrawn an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- vide cheque No.305099. The claim of the complainant that he had availed a loan by pledging the deposit receipt No.373/453 is not true and correct and so denied. In fact Receipt No.373/40853 is a duplicate receipt which was issued not because the original was missed but his FD account remained overdue as the system did not make an automatic renewal. So to protect the interest of the customer the said amount was manually renewed at later date and so the new number has to be allotted to it. Duplicate receipt was issued as against receipt No.373/455 and not for 373/453. The complainant with ulterior motive of making wrongful gain had deliberately kept the original receipt No.373/453 and obtained the duplicate receipt No.373/40853 which he encashed on 18.07.2016. So no amount is due to him under the aforesaid two accounts and as per the stipulations in the indemnity bond the complainant is liable to surrender the original deposit receipt. But in this case the complainant instead of surrendering the original receipt, has been trying to make wrongful gain by misusing the original receipt unlawfully detained by him. The complainant had approached the bank on 18.07.2016 and submitted the F.D. Receipt No.373/40853 and closed the same and received the money to his account. Thereafter he had made a false complaint to the then Chief Manager of the bank alleging that the amount due under A/c No.373/40853 is the new computer converted number as stated supra. Thereafter he had filed a complaint before the banking Ombudsman falsely alleging deficiency in service of the bank and the Ombudsman on receipt of the statement of facts from the bank has closed the complaint on 02.05.2017. Absolutely there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank as well as its employees and the allegation is made only for the purpose of making this complaint before this Forum. The complainant is neither entitled to Rs.2,74,742/- nor the interest thereon either at the rate 17% p.a or any lesser rate. Whatever amount he had deposited with the bank had been returned to him together with the agreed interest also and so absolutely there is no reason for any mental agony or pain to him. Also there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party so as to pay any amount by way of compensation and also the cost of the proceedings. In fact for filing this frivolous and vexatious complaint against a reputed bank the complaint is to be dismissed with maximum compensatory cost to it. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this complaint and so the complaint is to be dismissed with maximum compensatory cost to the opposite party bank.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant has encashed FD receipt No.373/455?
- Whether the FD Receipt No.373/40853 is the duplicate of FD receipt in lieu of FD Receipt No.373/455?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,74,742/- along with interest @ 17% p.a as per FD No.B2044984 as claimed in relief No. 1?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party bank?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in 2nd relief?
- Reliefs and costs.
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 documents. Evidence on the side of the opposite party consists of the oral evidence of DW1 and Ext.B1 &B2 documents.
Both sides have filed notes of argument.
Heard both sides.
Point No.1 to 5
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 5 points are considered together. The following are the admitted facts in this case. The complainant is a gulf returnee and when he lost his employment abroad he came and settled at his native place. The complainant is operating an NRI A/c No. 336702050 and an SB A/c No. 336702010016604 with the opposite party bank. The complainant when he was working abroad used to sent money regularly through NRI A/c. He used to withdraw the amount from his NRI A/c and make FD and on expiry of the period of fixed deposit he used to re-invest the same. The complainant on 19.10.12 made an FD with the opposite party bank for Rs.1,00,000/- as FD No.B2044984(Ext.A1)(Ledger page No.56/8, deposit No.373/455) and also made another FD No.B2044985 for Rs.1,00,000/-(Ext.A4)(Ledger page No.57/8 deposit No.373/453). Both deposits were for a period of 36 months.
It is brought out in evidence through PW1 that the complainant has pledged FD receipt bearing No.373/453 in the opposite party bank and availed a loan against the said FD. When the loan amount was repaid in full the complainant demanded the FD receipt. Thereupon the bank officials informed him that the said FD receipts were missing from the bank and on furnishing all the documents demanded by the opposite party bank they issued Ext.A5 duplicate receipt No.373/40853 and subsequently the above FD was encashed and the amount was withdrawn. According to the complainant the amount due under FD receipt No.373/455 became due on 19.10.15 he rushed to the bank with the original FD receipt and thereupon the opposite party bank informed him that there is no such deposit in the bank and hence the amount of Rs.274742/- covered by the above FD receipt was not paid. According to the complainant as the original FD receipt bearing No.373/455(B2044984) is in the hands of the complainant . The bank officials are not expected to say that there is no such FD and no amount is due to the complainant under that FD receipt and the denial of the payment of money covered by the above FD, according to the complainant nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. Admittedly Ext.A1 is the FD which is alleged to have been not encashed by the complainant. The original number of the above FD receipt is 2044984 and the above F.D was for a period of 3years. In the meanwhile computerization was made in the bank and a new No.373/455 was endorsed on the face of Ext.A1 FD receipt. According to PW1 Ext.A3 is the pass book maintained by him with the opposite party bank one FD was seen closed on 11.04.2016 and closure proceeds of Rs.268724/- was credited to his SB A/c on the same day. Yet another FD was also seen closed on the same day and closure proceeds amounting to Rs.642320/- was credited to his SB Account. During cross examination PW1 would admit that Ext.A1 t\bpw Ext.A4 t\bpw Ipdn-¨mWv A\-ym-b-¯n ]d-bp-¶Xv (Q) AsX(A). Sn cv FD Ifpw amdn-sb-Sp-¯-Xmbn A3 pass book sImv ImWp-¶p. A{]-Imcw tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«p-v. In view of the above admission of PW1 and the endorsements in Ext.A3 pass book on 11.04.16 it is crystal clear that 2 FD’s were encashed out of which one FD is for Rs.268724/-. The closure proceeds of the above FD has been seen credited to his SB account. PW1 would admit during cross examination with permission that apart from the amount due under FD receipt No.373/455(Ext.P1) no amount under any other FD was due from the bank. In view of the above materials on record it is crystal clear that the amount credited to his Ext.A3 SB A/c amounting to Rs.268724/- is the amount due as per the alleged FD receipt and no other amount is due from the bank and his allegation to the contrary appears to be incorrect.
The oral evidence of DW1 Chief Manager of the bank and Ext.B1 statement of account relating to Ext.A3 SB A/c maintained by the complainant with the opposite party bank and Ext.B2 statement relating to FD Account of the complainant with the opposite party bank would probabilise the case of the opposite party that the complainant has encashed the disputed FD and closure proceeds has been credited to Ext.A3 SB A/c and subsequently he has withdrawn that amount. It is further to be pointed out that in Ext.A2 order of the Banking Ombudsman it is stated that on examination of the grievance petition filed by the complainant herein and the reply received from the bank the complaint has been closed u/s 13(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 and as no appeal shall be if the grievance petition/complaint is closed u/s 13(A) of the scheme, the complainant was advised to approach any other Forum.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in the allegation of the complaint against the opposite party bank and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief sought for in the complaint and the complaint is only to be dismissed. Points answered accordingly.
Point No.6
In the result complaint stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of April 2022.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Devadas
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext A1: FD receipt No.2044984 for Rs.100000/- (Ledge page No.56, Folio No.8) Union Bank of India, Kottiyam branch.
Ext A2: Order of the Banking Ombudsman dated 02.05.17.
Ext.A3: SB account pass book of the complainant.
Ext.A4: Photocopy of FDR No.B2044985.
Ext.A5 :Photocopy of duplicate FDR
Ext.A6 :Letter dated 15.07.2016 issued by Deputy Regional Head.
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-
DW1 : V.Biju.
Documents marked for the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 : Certificate from Union Bank.
Ext.B2 : The details regarding the FDRs of the complainants held with opposite party.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
