Complaint filed on: 04-12-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 15-09-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.177/2019 and CC.No.178/2019

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainants: -                            

1. CC.No.177/2019

Smt.Geetha.B

W/o Umamahesh.M

Aged 40 years,

Residing at Hulikunte,

Kasaba hobli,

Koratagere taluk

2. CC.No.178/2019

Kum.Gnanashree.U.M

D/o Umamahesh.M

Aged about 14 years, Minor,

Represented by her father

Umamahesh.M,

S/o Malleshanna,

Aged 45 years, 

Residing at Hulikunte,

Kasaba hobli,

 Koratagere taluk,

(By Sri.D.Shivanna, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite party:-       

The Manager,

Karnataka Grameena Bank

Bramhasandra gate,

Near Bus Stand,

Hanumanthapura, NH-4,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru dist.

(By Sri.M.C.Prabhu, Advocate)

COMMON ORDER

SRI.KUMARA.N, MEMBER

These complaints are filed to direct the opposite party (herein after referred as OP) to restore the deposit amount to its original status and pay punitive cost of Rs.10,000-00 with litigation cost of Rs.5,000-00 to the complainants. 

2. The complaints filed by complainants in CC.No.177/2019 and CC.No.178/2019 are the mother and daughter. The relief claimed in both complaints is similar and defence taken by the OP bank is one and the same hence, to avoid repetition of facts and law this common order.

3. The complainants had deposited the amount [FDR] in the OP bank in their names and the details of deposit receipt number, deposited amount, maturity date and maturity amount is in the below table.

4. The complainant in CC.No.177/2019 has borrowed loan from OP of Rs.1,00,000-00 on 7-1-2013 vide DPL A/c. No. (Loan A/c No.) 85008551163 and Rs.2,00,000-00 on 11-3-2015 vide DPC A/a. No.(Loan A/c No.)85028410899 against the deposited amount of Rs.1,50,000-00 (deposit receipt No.235726) and Rs.2,50,000-00 (receipt No.235711) respectively.

5. The complainant in CC No.178/2019 has also borrowed a loan from OP Rs.1,30,000-00 on 15-2-2015 vide DPC A/c.No.8503149733 against deposited amount of Rs.4,00,000-00 (deposit receipt No.235710). The complainants have not approached the OP for any purpose till 12-2-2019 and the complainants have approached the OP on 12-2-2019 and 13-2-2019 with respect to amount deposited in CC.No.178/2019 and CC.No.177/2019 respectively to repay the loan amount. The complainants came to know that the said loans were adjusted and cleared of the deposited amount. In this regard the OP bank has not issued any notice to complainants. It is further case of complainants that they are ready and willing to repay the outstanding loan amount with interest to the OP bank, subject to the condition that it should reopen the deposit account. The complainants have got issued notice through their learned counsel on 20-5-2019 and said notice served to the OP bank but the OP bank did not reply to the said notice. Hence, these complaints to direct the OP bank to restore the deposit account to its original status and punitive cost of Rs.10,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs.5,000-00 etc. to the complainants.    

6. The OP bank in both cases filed written objections by taking same nature of defence. The OP bank admitted the deposit [FDR] made by the complainants and its maturity amount as mentioned in the complaints. The OP bank denied rest of the allegations made in the complaints. It is the case of OP bank that at the time of depositing the amount and obtaining the loan, the complainants were residing at Tharur village, Sira taluk. After obtaining the loan the complainants left the village along with family members without any intimation to the OP bank.  The OP bank officials visited the complainants’ village and made enquiry with the villagers and came to know where about of complainants not known to them. Since the complainants have not turned up after obtaining the loan for more than five years and not paid the loan installments with interest. No other alternative left to the OP bank except to close the FDR amount of complainants and adjust towards the loan accounts and credit the remaining amount to the complainant’s SB account. Further the OP bank admitted the notice issued by the complainant on 20-5-2019 through their advocate under RPAD. After the closure of loan account by adjusting deposits made by the complainants has issued notice hence, there was no necessity to reply to the said notice.  It is further case of OP bank that the complainants have intentionally became defaulter hence, the question of payment of maturity value, litigation cost and to restore the deposited amount does not arise. On the amongst other grounds, the OP bank asked to dismiss the complaints.     

          7. The complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P7 in CC. No.177/2019 and Exs.P1 to P11 in CC.No.178/2019. On behalf of OP bank one Smt.Dhanalakshmi W/o late C.K.Narasimhamurthy, Branch Manager, KGB, Brahmasandra gate Branch filed affidavit evidence and produced copy of Gazette Notification in both cases.

8. We have heard the oral arguments of the learned counsel for the complainants and in addition to that written brief submitted by the complainant and OP bank and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainants prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP bank with regard to deposit account?

2)      Are complainants entitled to the reliefs sought for?

9. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative      

Point No.2: In the negative for the below

                  REASONS

          10. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainants have vehemently argued that the OP bank has acted against the bank policy in forfeiting the entire deposit amount and accrued interest towards the loan amount. If the OP bank has informed said fact to the complainants, the complainants would have repaid the loan and interest amount borrowed on the deposits. The OP bank has deceived the complainants and committed the act of deficit of service which is against the service motto. The complainants in their affidavit evidence have reiterated the averments of complaints.

11. The copies of deposit receipts and loan taken details furnished by the complainants in CC.No.177/2019 and CC.No.178/2019 prove that the complainants have borrowed loan from OP of Rs.1,00,000-00 on 7-1-2013 vide DPL A/c. No. (Loan A/c No.) 85008551163 and Rs.2,00,000-00 on 11-3-2015 vide DPC A/a. No.(Loan A/c No.) 85028410899 on the deposited amount of Rs.1,50,000-00 (deposited receipt No.235726) and Rs.2,50,000-00 (receipt No.235711)  and loan due date was on 7-1-2014 and 11-4-2016 respectively.

12. In CC No.178/2019 the complainant has also borrowed a loan from OP Rs.1,30,000-00 on 15-2-2015 vide DPC A/c.No.8503149733 on deposit amount of Rs.4,00,000-00 (deposit receipt No.235710) and loan due date was on 15-2-2016.

13. The complainants admitted that they have not approached the OP bank for any purpose till 12-2-2019 and the complainants for the first time after availing loan have approached the OP bank on 12-2-2019 and 13-2-2019 with respect to deposits of CC.No.178/2019 and CC.No.177/2019 respectively to repay the loan amount. Then the complainants came to know that the said loans were adjusted and cleared of the deposited amount as the complainants at the time of borrowing loan on deposit [FDR], surrendered/deposited the original deposit receipts with the OP bank and signed as endorsement on back side of the deposit receipt as received principal and interest.

14. There is no dispute by the complainants and OP bank regarding deposits, loan borrowed on the deposits and the complainants not approaching the OP bank for any reasons up to 12-2-2019. The OP bank in its objections has taken contention that the complainants not traced as they have left the address without intimation to OP bank and several time the OP bank officials have visited the complainants address which was given at the time of depositing the amount and also borrowing loan at Tharur village, Sira Taluk which lies in the OP bank service area jurisdiction. The complainants in their complaints and affidavit evidence stated that they are residing at Hulikunte, Kasaba hobli, Koratagere taluk. Since the complainants did not turn up after obtaining the loan on the deposit and even after due date of loan repayment i.e. 7-1-2014 and 11-4-2016 in CC.No.177/2019 and on 15-2-2016 in CC.No.178/2019. Further the complainants did not care to pay the loan installments with interest as agreed at the time of borrowing loan from the OP bank as such after declaring as NPA on 7-5-2016 without alternative the OP bank adjusted the loan and interest amount from the deposits and credited the remaining amount to the complainants SB account.  On the contrary the complainants were negligent in approaching the OP bank after availing loan on the deposit amount. Further the complainants have failed to intimate their change of address. In view of the above discussion, we come to conclusion that the complainants have failed to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP bank.  In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaints are dismissed without costs. 

Place the original order in CC.No.177/2019 and copy of the order in CC.No.178/2019.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite party at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15^th day of September, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT