Orissa

Debagarh

CC/11/2016

Sri Butu Bagarti, S/o-Late Bulu Bagarti - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Pravas Chandra Mishra

24 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.CASE NO.11/2016

(Shri D.K.Mohapatra, President, Shri P. C. Mahapatra, Member and Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member)

 

Butu Bagarti, S/o-Lt. Bui Bagarti,

R/o-Vill-Kalkath, Po-Basaloi,

Ps/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                  ….       Complainant.

 

Versus

 

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

At/Po/Ps/Dist-Deogarh.                                                        ….       Opp.Party.

 

 

Date of hearing: 15.12.2016   Date of decision: 24.12.2016.

              

               Counsel for the parties:

                            For the Complainant                      :  Shri Pravas Mishra, Advocate

                            For the Opposite Parties                :  Shri P.K.Rath, Advocate.

                                                                                      Shri S.K.Rath, Advocate.

 

SHRI PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER: - Genus of the case lies in the fact that the complainant, a resident of village – Kalkath, PO – Basaloi, PS/Dist.-Deogarh, had deposited Rs.3000/- vide Special Term Deposit Receipt ( in short STDR) on 23.09.1993 for five years in the joint name of himself and one Purastam Bagarty payble to “ E or S” and Rs.35,541/- vide STDR bearing no.SD/A/78-672381 on 29.06.2004 for one year. Date of maturity of the STDRs are 23.09.98 and 28.06.2005 with maturity value Rs. 4,916/- and Rs.37,352/- respectively. Complainant alleged that he approached O.P. to release the fixed deposited amount with interest several times but the OP turned down his request on 23.1.2016. Hence, the instant complaint.

2.         Answering OP challenging maintainability of the case both in law and facts of the case under Consumer Protection Act,1986, hereinafter termed Act, admitted the fact of deposits made under STDRs vide receipt No.SD-A/10- 91374 and receipt No. SD-A/78-672381, which were not re-deposited by the complainant in the Bank (O.P) subsequently. It is also further contended after maturity of fixed deposit, the same were transferred to his account and he had withdrawn the same earlier assuring to produce relevant documents in context to this transaction at the time of hearing. Denying averment of the complainant in Paras 2 & 3 of the complaint petition, OP has conclusively and emphatically submitted that petitioner had already withdrawn the amount from the (O.P) which was deposited in the bank after maturity of the fixed deposit and filed the instant case to harass the O.P. SBI, Deogarh. Finally claiming dismissal of the complaint since filed beyond period limitation OP has contended not to have done anything deficient in rendering services.

            Later OP filed an amendment to written Show Cause where in (i) inserted “ Complainant did not come so the amount was automatically redeposit in the Bank of OP.” in the last line after the word OP in Para-2; (ii)  in second line after the word “has” inserted “not” and deleted the word”earlier” in Para-3; (iii)  in the 1^st.line after the word “showing” inserted “payment and” in Para-4; (iv) in the 1^st.line after the word “That” inserted “as” and after the word “has”, substituted the expression “already” with “not” in Para-5; and (v) deleted Para-6 substituting therein “ The Complainant has never appeared in the Bank”. Consequential to such amendment being allowed, the relevant Paras have been restructured as follows:   

 

2.    That, the averments in Para 2 are partially true. The petitioner had deposited cash of fixed deposit scheme vide receipt No. SD-A/10-914374 on 23.09.2013 and receipt No. SD-A/78-672381 on 29.06.2004.

But the same was not re-deposited by the petitioner in the Bank (O.P) complainant did not come so the amount was automatically re-deposited in Bank of O.P.

3.    That, after maturity of fixed deposit, the same was transferred to his amount and he has not withdrawn the same.

4.    That, documents showing transfer of fixed deposit after maturity to his account will be shown at the time of hearing.

5.    That, as petitioner has not withdrawn the amount from the Bank (O.P) which was deposited in the bank after maturity of the fixed deposit.

6.    The complainant has never appeared in the Bank.

3.         Heard both the sides and on perusal of documents adduced it is found as follows:

           

1. The challenge at the outset of the written version of the OP is not maintainable as it is well settled in Law that Banking is a Service and Fixed Deposit Schemes is one of the services provided by Banks.
2. There is no dispute as to saving of money by the Complainant under STDRs with the OP Bank.
3. Complainant has not made any endeavor to encash the STDRs soon after they got matured. Also he has failed to establish when he had approached the OPs for encashment of the STDRs and ultimately OPs turned down his request on 23.01.2016.
4. Terms & Conditions of Special Term Deposit , as embodied on the back page of the STDR reads :

In the STDR bearing no.SD-A/78 672381;

In the absence of a demand or instruction to the contrary on the date of maturity, the deposit will be renewed/ continued to be renewed for similar period at the then prevailing rate of interest;

In the STDR bearing no. SD-A/10 914374;  

Interest will cease on the due date, when this receipt should be sent duly endorsed by the depositor(s) for payment or renewal.

From one document filed by the OP during hearing [Exhbt.-D/1], it is observed that the STDR bearing No. SD-A/78 672381 having been assigned Account No.10761687978 has been renewed and from [Exhbt.-D/2-1] it is evinced that the present status of the same is: Date of Maturity – 29.06.2017, Amount on Maturity – Rs.95,463.00. Further it is seen that during digitization of Bank’s Manual Records the name of the complainant which appears as “Butu Bagarty” has been posted as “Basanty Batu”. This is a sheer mistake may be typographical but having no ulterior intention. It has been submitted by OPs during hearing that the other STDR tracking of it is being continued and since an old case it is time taking to trace it immediately.

5. Learned Advocate for Complainant submitted during hearing that complainant is a pretty old man not able to walk of his own accord but nowhere his age has been revealed on documents. Turning down his demand by OPs on 16.01.2016 has caused him mental shock, harassment and agony. In the original petition it has been averred that “………….severally but the Branch Manager SBI Deogarh Branch has turned over for the same on 23.1.2016………..” by the complainant. Also, on the other hand, OP has contended that complainant had never appeared in the Bank. At the same time in para- 6 of the original written version filed 09.12.2016 it has been contended that the petitioner as had already withdrawn the amount and the case launched to harass the O.P. SBI, Deogarh which has been omitted in the amendment petition and in lieu inserted “The complainant has never appeared in the Bank.” On conjoint reading of Original Written version and amendments made thereafter while preparing for hearing it is transpired that OP superfluously and never seriously answered the allegation labeled against him without going through facts. He should have gone through facts first and then answered.

Under above premises we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to establish that he had placed his demands for cash against the STDRs and the OP is guilty of deficient service as he has failed to act on documents/facts and yet not able to trace the fate of STDR bearing No. SD-A/10 914374. I, therefore as under:

 

                                                                                             O R D E R

            Complaint petition is partly allowed. OP is directed to pay the admissible amount against the STDR no. SD-A/78-672381 on its production with necessary endorsements. As regards STDR No. SD-A/10-914374, OP shall pay the matured amount i.e. Rs.4,916/-(Rupees four thousand nine hundred and sixteen) since interest shall cease from the due date as per terms and condition on demand producing the document with endorsement. OP is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) towards compensation of mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards cost of litigation to the Complainant  within 45 ( Forty five) days of receipt of this order failing which the O.P. shall have to pay in addition, an interest of 9% per annum till actually the amount is paid in course of Law.

            Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

Order is pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 24^TH. Day of December 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.

             

                   I agree                                    I agree

 

            (Jayanti Pradhan)                    (D.K.Mahapatra)                                 (P.C. Mahapatra)

                MEMBER (W)                      PRESIDENT                                           MEMBER

 

            Dictated and Corrected by me.

 

 

                              MEMBER