D.O.F:08/10/2020
D.O.O:10/05/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.133/2020
Dated this, the 10th day of May 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Geethalakshmi
W/oUdayashankar Bhat
Ashraya, Nelkkala
Vidyanagar, Kasaragod – 671123 : Complainant
(Adv: C. Damodaran)
And
The Secretary
The Mugu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd : Opposite Party
No.C. 33(FF)
Mugu, Puthige – 671321
(Adv: Suresh.K.P)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Bank for withholding of FD amount of the complainant even after the date of maturity.
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is the wife of Dr. Udayashankara bhat who is also a complainant in CC -134/20 and Opposite Party is a Co-operative society. As part of the business promotion Opposite Party through its Kollankandam branch on various occasions collected huge amount from the complainant as FD. The complainants family members were Covid positive and under treatment for a long time. So the complainant could not approach the Opposite Party bank for the last more than six months. After recovery from illness when complainant approached Kollakandam branch on 23/09/2020 he came to know that the branch was closed. The complainant personally visited the head office of the bank and requested to close the FD and pay the amount in her name. The complainant’s efforts to close the fixed deposit and receive the amount became futile and complainant apprehends that the intention of Opposite Party is not to pay the deposit. Eventhough Opposite Party promised to repay the amount within a week. None of the deposit is closed nor amount refunded on 23/09/2020 the complainant’s husband has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite Party. The complainant’s husband suffered huge loss of income as his clinic close for a long time and constrained to closed deposit as they were in urgent necessity of money. By not closing the FD Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service negligence and unfair trade practice for which the complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with refund of the total FD amount of Rs. 08,64,526/- with 8 .5 % interest and cost.
The Opposite Party appeared and filed version through his counsel. According to him the complainant suppressed all facts before the forum and raised baseless allegations. According to the Opposite Party the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. So the complainant is not maintainable before the forum. The complainant not availed any service as stated in the complaint whatever the complainant done with Opposite Parties is only depositing an amount for making profit and it is not for her livelihood. The transaction is purely a commercial one and no charge is levied on her by the Opposite Party. So she is not rendered any service from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has wide range business and the complainant’s intention is to damage the reputation of Opposite Party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no merit or bonafied in the complainant and it is filed as an experimental one. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext A1 series 6 in number and Ext A2. The Opposite Party sought time for evidence on many occasions but not turned up. Heard the complainant the issues raised for consideration are
- Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the complaint entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
Here the complainant a practicing doctor invested huge amount with Opposite Party as fixed deposit and on maturity when the complainant approached Opposite Party bank it was found closed. The Opposite Party promised to repay the amount within a week but he failed to do so. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal. Ext A1 is the FD receipts for Rs. 49,000/- (Rupees Fourty nine thousand only) Dt. On 07/09/2017, Ext A1 series 2 is another FD receipts Dt: 13/09/2017 for Rs. 49,000/-, Ext A1 series 3 another FD receipts Dt: 09/09/2017 for Rs. 49,000/-. A1 series 4 is another FD receipts Dt: 12/09/2017 for Rs. 49,000/-. A1 series 5 is also an FD receipts Dt: 31/03/2018 for Rs. 4,00,000/-. A1 series 6 is also an FD receipts Dt: 26/05/2018 for Rs. 1,00,000/- Thus the complainant has produced FD receipt to the total amount of Rs.8,64,526/- . Ext A2 is the demand letter Dt: 23/09/2020 issued by the complainant to opposite party. The terms of FD are different in each receipt. Opposite party raised a contention that the case is time barred. The complainant has given a satisfactory explanation for delay in filing the case. As he and his family are affected by Covid 19 and was undergoing treatment hence they could not approach the Opposite Party in time. The Opposite Party is bound to refund Rs. 8,64,526/-. to the complainant with 8.5 % interest on maturity as agreed earlier . But Opposite Party has not produced any material evidence to prove that he has returned the aforesaid amount. The complainant was entitled to get the maturity amount with interest.
In Sumangal Rao and another vs Vijaya Bank CPR (163 SCDRC Karnataka it is held that the complainant was entitled to get the maturity amount with interest at 15% from the date of maturity till payment . The bank refused to repay the F.D on its maturity to the complainant and it is held that nonpayment of FD on maturity amount to deficiency in service. But here complainant prayed for 8.5% interest which is agreed by both parties at the time of opening FD. Hence we allowed the prayer of the complainant.
Hence the complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party bank to refund Rs. 8,64,526/- with 8.5 % interest to the complainant from the date of maturity till payment. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) along with Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) cost to the complainant.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of Judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1series in (6 numbers) - Copy of the FD receipts
A2- Demand letter
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
