DATE OF FILING : 31.5.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of   April,  2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P    MEMBER

CC NO.109/2018

Between

Complainants       :  1.   Meenu, D/o. Joy,

     Shauryamkuzhiyil House,

     Nellippara P.O.,

     Parakkadavu, Thankamany, Idukki.  

2.  Joy, S/o. Joseph,

     Shauryamkuzhiyil House,

     Nellippara P.O.,

     Parakkadavu, Thankamany, Idukki. 

               (By Adv:  George Thomas 

   Mokkilikkattu)

And

Opposite Party                                          :    The Secretary,

Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Kattappana, 

Idukki.

(By Adv:  V.C. Sebastian)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

The second complainant had joined in a scheme launched by the opposite party bank during the birth of the 1st complainant, his daughter, attracting the offers of the then secretary of the  opposite party bank and deposited Rs.10000/-.  At that time, opposite party assured that if the complainant deposited this amount for 20 years in this scheme, he will get a maturity amount of Rs.2 lakhs after 20 years.  Hence the complainant happened to join in the scheme in the name of his daughter on 11.5.1998,  the date of birth of his daughter, the 1st complainant, by depositing Rs.10,520/- to the opposite party bank.

 

In return of this deposit, opposite party bank issued a bearer cheque of Rs.2 lakhs of the opposite party bank, dated 11.5.2018.  The condition of the 

         (cont.....2)

-  2  -

scheme is, if the depositor dies before the maturity date, they will not get the deposited amount.  This deposit carries 15% interest and it will be added in the principle amount quarterly.  The cheque issued by the opposite party having  Golden Cheque No.074 and the opposite party opened an account in the name of the 1st complainant with their bank as account No.9060090152.

 

As per the direction of the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party bank on the maturity date of the deposit and demanded the amount as per the cheque.  At that time, the opposite party bank denied to issue the cheque amount and they stated that as per the financial condition, they have to pay only Rs.83,978/- instead of the maturity value of the deposit.  The opposite party further stated that this scheme was launched much earlier and the present committee is not known about this and opposite party bank is not ready to suffer the loss.  The bank authorities forced the complainant to receive the amount and the complainant rejected their proposal and demanded the maturity amount.  Complainant further averred that as per the inducement of opposite party bank authorities, complainant happened to deposit such an amount in this scheme and denying the maturity amount as promised is a gross unfair trade practice and deficiency in the  service on the part of the opposite party.  Against the above said act of the opposite party, the complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay the maturity amount of the deposit as they offered and direct them to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version admitting the launching of Golden Deposit scheme and the deposit of the complainant.  Opposite party further contended that, the complainant himself approached the opposite party bank and deposited the amount as per the advertisement of the scheme, but nobody from the bank approached him for taking membership in the scheme, as the complainant alleged.  Opposite party further contended that in return of the deposit, opposite party issued a receipt to the complainant, when the complainant approached the opposite party bank, opposite party bank informed him that the scheme already stopped and the bank is decided to give an amount of Rs.83978/- against the deposit amount to the maximum.

 

Opposite party further contended that at the time launching the scheme, the interest rate was 15%, but it diminished periodically.  Due to that, the bank forced to stop this scheme before its maturity period, otherwise it will negatively affect the functioning of this bank.  For smooth functioning of the bank, opposite party bank decided to stop this scheme and opposite party 

(cont.....3)

-  3  -

bank has authority to do so, as per the direction of the RBI.  Hence the opposite party bank is no way liable to pay the maturity amount to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part in this matter.  Moreover, this fact is properly intimated to each member of this scheme prior to its maturity.  This notice was accepted by the complainant also and thereafter they have not raised any objection to this decision of the bank.  Hence no deficiency in service can be attribute against the opposite party bank. 

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and document.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 Golden Deposit Receipt marked.

 

From the opposite side, copy of minutes of Board meeting dated 10.9.2004 and notice produced and marked as Exts.R1 and R2 respectively.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

  The POINT :-  We have heard the counsel for both the parties and have gone through the evidence on record.  From the evidence, it is seen that the scheme launched by the opposite party is admitted by them and they prayed for allowing them to disburse the amount to the concerned depositor as per the decision taken by the general body on 10.9.2004.  The version of the opposite party that they intimated the matter to the members of the scheme much prior to the respective date of maturity of the deposit,   that they cannot run the scheme due to the recision of the interest rate and they decided to close the scheme by offering maximum interest rate to the depositor.  For this purpose, notice was served to the complainant also.  But no evidence is produced by the opposite party to convince the Forum that the decision of the general body meeting of the opposite party bank properly intimated to the complainant as they contended in their reply version.  For strengthening their plea, opposite party produced copy of general body meeting minutes before the Forum.  On perusing this document, it is seen that, it is not legible and not properly attested or sealed and Ext.R2 notice is also not sufficient to prove their version.

 

Under this circumstances, the Forum is not in a  position to consider the contention of the opposite party.  It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to 

(cont.....4)

-  4  -

adduce sufficient evidence to fortify their version.  On the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the version of the opposite party in this matter is not believable or sustainable and hence it is rejected.

 

Hence the complaint allowed.  Opposite party is directed to sanction the maturity value as per Ext.P1 golden deposit receipt to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  Failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default till its realisation.  No order to compensation and cost.

 

            Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2019

 

            Sd/-

             SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

        SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Joy Joseph

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1             -  Golden Deposit receipt. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -   Copy of minutes of Board meeting dated 10.9.2004.

Ext.R2            -   Notice dated 15.9.2004

 

 

 

       Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

 

         SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT