Complaint filed on: 26-12-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 29-09-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.191/2019

DATED THIS THE 29^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

Complainant: -

V.Nagabhushan Reddy,

S/o late V.Pothareddy,

Aged about 70 years,

Class-1 Contractor,

R/at Reddy Colony,

Pavagada town, Pavagada

Tumakuru dist.  

(By Sri.H.V.Ranganatha Reddy, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Manager,

Vijaya bank

Pavagada town,

Pavagada

2. The Executive Engineer /Authorized officer,

PWD Department,

Madhugiri

(OP No.1-by advocate Sri.Lakshmikanthan,

Advocate)

(OP No.2-Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.KUMARA.N, MEMBER

This complaint is filed to direct the OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay the fixed deposit amount of Rs.56,000-00 and Rs.20,000-00 towards mental torture and financial loss with interest to the complainant.

2. The OP No.1 is Vijaya Bank, Pavagada town, Pavagada and the OP No.2 is the Executive Engineer/ Authorised officer, PWD, Madhugiri. 

          3. It is the case of complainant that he is the class-I contractor and he had obtained FDR of Rs.56,000-00 vide No.VVC account No.129503291000130 on 24-9-2009  from the 1^st OP bank for security purpose to obtain the contract work from the 2^nd OP. After the completion of contract work and obtaining the final bill from 2^nd OP, the complainant has demanded the 1^st OP to refund the FDR amount of Rs.56,000-00 but the 1^st OP has failed to refund the said amount. On 29-5-2018 the 2^nd OP written a letter and requested the 1^st OP stating that no objection to release the amount of Rs.56,000-00 in favour of complainant but the OPs have failed to refund the FDR amount of Rs.56,000-00 to the complainant.  Due to negligent act of the OP Nos.1 and 2 the complainant has suffered mental agony hence, the complainant has approached this Commission for deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2.

          4. The OP No.1 after the service of notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that on 24-9-2009 the complainant had made FDR amount of Rs.56,000-00 in the 1^st OP bank for the security purpose to obtain contract work from the 2^nd OP. Thereafter, the complainant requested the 1^st OP bank to refund the FDR amount then the 1^st OP insisted the complainant to produce the original FDR to release the amount. On 9-1-2018 the complainant gave representation to the 1^st OP stating that FDR submitted to the 2^nd OP is lost and requested to issue duplicate FDR. It is further submitted that on 29-5-2018 the 2^nd OP written a letter to 1^st OP stating that it has no objections to issue duplicate FDR. In this regard the 1^st OP asked the complainant to execute indemnity bond along with copy of FDR. On 23-1-2019 the complainant has executed indemnity bond and submitted the same to the 1^st OP.  The 1^st OP has prepared the duplicate FDR but the complainant did not turn up to collect the FDR. The 1^st OP bank official personally visited the complainant house but the complainant was not available in the house and they have orally informed the inmates of complainant to collect the FDR. On 25-4-2019 the 1^st OP written letter to complainant and requested to collect the FDR then the complainant personally visited the bank but refused to accept the letter and collect the FDR stating that the correspondence shall be made in local language. The 1^st OP is ready to issue duplicate FDR and pay the amount to the complainant at any time hence, there is no fault from the 1^st OP in making payment of the FDR amount.

5. It is further case of 1^st OP that the complainant had obtained loan in the 1^st OP bank for Agricultural allied activities. The said loan has became NPA because the complainant has not made repayment of said loan properly and as such on 1-7-2019 the 1^st OP bank has filed a suit for recovery of said loan amount in OS.188/2019 on the file of Additional Civil Judge at Pavagada. After receiving summons in the said suit the complainant has filed this complaint by narrating false story against the 1^st OP bank to escape from his liability hence, this complaint is not maintainable and it is filed without any just and proper grounds. On amongst other grounds, the 1^st OP asked to dismiss the complaint.

6. In response to the notice the 2^nd OP failed to appear hence, he is placed exparte.

7. The Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and marked Exs-P1 to P7 documents. On behalf of the 1^st OP its Manager, Sri.Rajendra.V has filed his affidavit and marked Exs.R1 to R16 documents.

          8. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and 1^st OP in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and 1^st OP and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2)      Is complainant 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 partly affirmative for the  

below

REASONS

          10. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the 1^st OP bank has neither issued duplicate FDR or not paid Rs.56,000-00 which was paid by the complainant to 1^st OP to obtain FDR vide No.VCC Account No.129503291000130 on 24-9-2009 which was submitted to 2^nd OP by the complainant for the purpose of obtaining contract, since the complainant is a class-I contractor.

          11. The complainant produced Ex.P1 legal notice dated 24-10-2019 issued to OP Nos.1 and 2 demanding the 2^nd OP to pay Rs.56,000-00 with interest @ 24% per annum. Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 which are postal receipts and RPAD sent to the OP Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Further the complainant has produced Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 the letters dated 17-1-2019 and 29-5-2019 addressed to the 1^st OP respectively by the audit officer of OP No.2. These letters prove that the complainant is a class-1 contractor and produced original FDR for Rs.56,000-00 to the 2^nd OP which was pledged to obtain contract work and the OP No.2 admitted the same and requested the 1^st OP to issue duplicate FDR to the complainant.

          12. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 has vehemently argued that the complaint is not sustainable and the grounds urged in the complaint are false, misleading and to overcome the latches on the part of the complainant filed frivolous complaint. The documents produced by the OP No.1 Ex.Nos.R1 to R16 prove that OP No.1 processed the request of complainant and responded to OP No.2 letters dated 18-2-2020, 23-01-2020, 18-2-2020 which are marked as Exs.R1, R2 and R3 respectively, and the complainant letters to OP No.1 dated 9-1-2018 and 17-1-2019 in which stated that FDR bond has lost and issue duplicate FDR which marked as Ex.P4. The 2^nd OP wrote letters to OP No.1 stating the FDR VCC Account No.129503291000130 has lost and no objection from our side to issue duplicate FDR to the complainant which marked as Ex-R5 and Ex.R6. The indemnity bond has executed by the complainant on 23-1-2019 and in turn the 1^st OP sent letter dated 25-4-2019 and the complainant received letters under postal acknowledgement which marked as Ex.R8 and Ex.R9. The complainant replied to OP No.1 letter by making endorsement on the letter dated 25-4-2019 in which stated that letter sent back since correspondence made by OP No.1 is not in Kannada as I am a farmer unable to understand English and send the same in Kannada. It shows that complainant has intentionally/purposely reacted to OP No.1 though he being a class-I contractor and the complainant singed in English on the complaint. The complaint runs four pages, verifying affidavit and legal notice are being drafted in English.

          13. The 1^st OP as per bank policy and rules has processed and prepared the statement of account calculating interest upto date with respect to FDR till 24-9-2019 and ready to issue duplicate FDR Ex.R12. The OP No.1 bank requested the complainant to collect duplicate FDR but the complainant did not visit the 1^st OP bank and collected the same. In view of the above discussion, we come to conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. There is no default on the part of OP No.1 bank since being it was ready and willing to pay FDR amount subject to producing original FDR or take duplicate by giving indemnity bond. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to either the compensation or litigation cost. This complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law and waste of commission time.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed without cost.

The OP No.1 is directed to issue duplicate FDR along with accrued interest as agreed by taking proper documents from the complainant. The complainant shall approach the 1^st OP bank as early as possible within 90 days from the date of order.

The complaint against the 2^nd OP is dismissed.  

.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of September, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT