Complaint Case No. CC/10/303
1. Edward S/O Lawrence Rego
R/O Maria Krupa ,Near st.Micheal School,Keshwapur,Hubli-580023
Dharwad
Karnataka
………..Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Liguidator,The Maratha Co-Operative Bank Ltd,
Regd. Office,Maratha Galli,HUBLI-580020
Dharwad
Karnataka
2. The Manager,The Maratha Co-Operative Bank Ltd,
Regd. Office,Maratha Galli,HUBLI-580020
Dharwad
Karnataka
…………Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HONORABLE Shekhargouda Patil PRESIDENT
HON’ABLE MRS. Vijayalakshmii M Member
HON’ABLE MR. S.L.Matti Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
BEFORE THE DIST.CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;DHARWAD.
DATE: 28th March 2011
PRESENT:
1) Shri Shekhargouda Patil: President
2) Smt. Vijayalaxmi.M : Member
3) Shri. S.L. Matti :Member
Complaint No.:303/2010
COMPLAINANT/s :
Edward s/o.Lawrence Rego,
Age: 57 years, Occ.: Service in
HESCOM, R/o.Maria Krupa, Near
Saint Michel’s School, Keshwapur,
Hubli 580023.
(By Sri. S.S. Shettemmanavar, Adv.)
-Vs-
RESPONDENT/s :
1. The liquidator, The Maratha Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Regd. Office, Maratha Galli, HUBLI-580020.
(By Sri. J.R. Mandre, Adv.)
2. The Manager, The Maratha Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Regd. Office, Maratha Galli, HUBLI-580020.
(Exparte)
3. Assistant Manager, Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai
(In Person)
O R D E R
By: Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi: Member.
Complaint filed u/s.12 of CP Act in brief is thus:
1) This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondents to refund the deposit amount Rs.1,14,388/- along with 18% interest p.a from the date of maturity till realization along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation & cost of the proceedings.
2) The complainant has contended that, the complainant is an employee working in HESCOM. The complainant during 1998-99 was in search of an institution, which offers high rate of interest to invest in order to save for his future. Accordingly, complainant approached respondent bank i.e. R2. Respondent 2 assured the complainant offering prompt service, high returns and financial safety etc. The complainant having been lured by the assurance of respondent complainant has invested the amount. The details are as follows.
FDR No.
Amt. Invested.
Dt. of Invt.
Maturity Dt.
Maturity Value
12050
Rs.25,000/-
27/2/1999
27/2/2009
Rs.1,14,388/-
3) After its maturity complainant had approached the respondents 1&2 he requested the respondents to refund the investment amount as there was urgent financial need in the family. Despite requests respondents did not bother to refund the same. The complainant has already written letters to R2, but his efforts have gone in vain, but till this day there is no response. Due to respondents negligence the complainant and his family members have suffered financial loss, untold harassment and agony.
4) The respondent bank has failed to respond to its promises made at the time of depositing the amount. These lapses of non refund clearly constitutes deficiency in service and even amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant filed this complaint against respondents.
5) Notices are served on respondents. R2 called out and found absent. Hence, R2 is placed exparte. R3 appeared in person. The respondent-1 has appeared through his counsel before the Forum and filed his written version contending that, after the appointment of liquidator, no designation of Manager is existing. Therefore, there is no Manager. Further contended that, the liquidator is care taker of the respondent bank and also government representative to provide remedies to the depositors. The liquidator has initiated the liquidation proceedings and received the DIC claims to the tune of Rs.18.5 crores and paid Rs.1 lakh to the complainant. That, the remaining balance will be paid finally as per the liquidation proceedings.
6) This Forum lacks jurisdiction, the respondent bank is governed by Karnataka Co-Op. Societies Act 1950 and also it has followed the guidelines of RBI under Banking Regulation Act as applicable to the liquidation bank. The liquidator is not a party to the proceedings. Hence, the respondent-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7) An application is filed by R1 with a prayer to implead the proposed R3. Application is allowed & the proposed party be impleaded as R3. Notice was sent to R3. Notice is served. R3 has sent a letter by e-mail praying some time to file objection.
8) R3 in his objection contended that, R3 is a body corporate constituted by Sec.3 of the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation Act 1961 for the purpose of insurance of deposits and guarantying of credit facilities and for other matters connected therewith. Further contended that the liquidator shall with least possible delay in any case not later than 3 months from the date of his assuming charge of office furnish a list of the depositors of the bank to the corporation in such form and manner as may be specified by the corporation. The corporation is required to settle the claims of the depositors within 2 months from the date of receipt of the claim list. In the present case the RBI vide letter dtd.21/3/08, has cancelled the banking license of the Maratha Co-Op. Bank Ltd., and same was served on bank on 29/1/2008 the Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Bangalore vide letter dtd.2/2/08 has taken the bank into liquidation and a liquidator has been appointed. The liquidator has submitted the claim list on 29/8/08 the claim has been processed by the corporation & corporation has released an amount of Rs.17.75 crore to the liquidator on 1/9/08 for making payment to the depositors of the bank. The corporation has settled the eligible claims of the depositors of the bank, including that of the complainant and as such discharged the corporation of its liability in respect of those deposits in terms of the provisions of Sec.19 of the DICGC Act 1961. It is for the complainant to approach the liquidator for payment of his deposit amounts. Therefore the complaint against the corporation is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no any cause of action against R3. Further contended that, R3 in discharge of its function has not rendered any service as contemplated u/s.2 sub.sec.(1) (0) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to the complainant as such the complainant is not a consumer of respondent-3. There is no privity of contract between complainant and respondent-3. Hence this Hon’ble. Forum has no jurisdiction vis-a-vis respondent-3. Therefore this complaint is required to be dismissed against R3.
9) In order to prove his case complainant has filed affidavit along with documents i.e. original FD certificate, letter written to the respondent-1 and acknowledgement card, Appeal copies, judgment copy, letters, medical bills & medical certificates. Respondent-1&3 filed their affidavits. Argument of respondent-1 and complainant was heard. Argument of R3 is taken as heard.
10) On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Finding on points is as under:
1. In Positive
2. In Positive but accordingly
3. As per order
REASONS
POINTS 1 & 2
11) This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondents to refund the deposit amount Rs.1,14,388/- along with 18% interest p.a from the date of maturity till realization along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation & cost of the proceedings.
12) Respondent no.1 is liquidator of bank. R-2 is Manager & and R3 is Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation. Complainant has invested the FD amount with respondent bank. After maturity complainant had approached respondent bank for payment of FD matured amount. But the respondents went on postponing the payment on one or other reason. Complainant though approached several times the respondents did not heed to encash the said FD amount. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant.
13) Respondent-1 has contended that, Respondent bank is liquidated on 2/2/2008. The posts of Respondent-2 is relinquished from date of appointment of liquidator.
14) On perusal of the documents, complainant had deposited his amount of Rs.25,000/- on 27/2/1999. Maturity date was 27/2/2009. Folio No.344/26, A/c No.9549, JCC No.12050 and Maturity value is Rs.1,14,388/-. About this complainant has produced original FD certificate. At the time of investment i.e. 1999 Respondents-2 post was there. Now respondent-1 is representing on behalf of Respondents-2. Respondent-1 has stepped into the shoes of Respondents-2. Respondent-1 in his objection he himself admitted that, the liquidator is care taker of the respondent bank and also he is government representative to provide remedies to the depositors. Hence Respondent No-1 is liable to refund complainants amount with interest.
15) When complainant has invested his amount with respondents, therefore complainant is consumer of the respondents. When the respondent bank has accepted the FD amount & after the date of maturity it is the bounden duty to pay the FD amount with interest to the complainant. Non payment of the FD amount amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
16) Respondent contended that, this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction as per Karnataka Co-operative Society Act 1959. But the remedies available under the CP Act are in addition & not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force & also Respondent bank is situated in Hubli. Hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
17) Respondent-1 contended that, complainant having deposited as FD amount, as per the DICGC CLAIM Ltd, BOMBAY, received DIC CLAIM Rs. 1,00,000/- released to the complainant. Balance due will be paid as per the liquidation proceedings in final settlement.
18) But complainant has contended that, in this FD amount Respondent has not paid any amount. But respondent has contended that amount paid is Rs.1,00,000/-. About this respondent has not produced any document to show, he paid that amount to the complainant. Complainant has produced letters dtd. 25/2/2009, 5/3/2009, 19/2/2009 and acknowledgement cards. On perusal of the document dtd: 19/2/2009 this letter shows respondent wrote letter to complainant deposited amount sanctioned but complainant will receive within 28/2/2009. Complainant not received that amount return back to DIC, Bombay & another two letters dtd: 25/2/2009 & 5/3/2009 these two letters show complainant requested respondents to send amount to his address. The address is mentioned in his letter. But respondent no.1 has not produced any document to show that he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant in FD JCC No.12050. Without any documentary evidence such objection of the respondent cannot be accepted. The written version of respondent does not clearly show that he paid amount to the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
19) In this case how much amount complainant received, cheque number, on what date he received & which account respondent credited, about this respondent has not clearly stated.
20) R3 in his objection contended that, he has released the eligible amount as claimed by the liquidator on 1/9/2008 including the claim of complainant. Therefore, it is now for the complainant to approach the liquidator for payment of the amount. Since the DIC has settled the eligible claim of the depositors of the bank. Considering that R1 received amount from DIC on 1/9/2008 but R1 not paid any amount to the complainant. Complaint is for payment of the matured FD amount which is payable by the R1, because R1 has stepped into the shoe of R2. If any amount was deposited by the complainant, is with the respondents1 and 2. No transaction or agreement has taken place with complainant and DIC at the time of investment. Hence, holding that DIC is not a necessary party. R1 has now stepped into the shoe of R2 and care taker of bank. Hence, R1 has already received amount from DIC. Hence, R1 is directed to pay complainant’s claim amount.
21) Hence the complainant is entitled to claim amount with interest and also the respondent has not produced any proof to show that he has paid amount in this case. The contents of those documents are not denied or disproved by the respondent no.1.
22) As per a decision in 2008 CPR 81 NS wherein their lordships have held that, failure to refund deposited amount & interest by a firm amounts to deficiency in service.
23) Complainant has produced some documents i.e. Appeal copies, judgment copies, letters, acknowledgement cards & FD original certificate. It shows complainant invested some amount with respondents. Complainant filed complaint, thereafter he received amount from the respondents. Complainant in order to prove his case produced medical bills, receipts, medical certificates, it shows complainant was suffering from health problem. Due to his health problem he is not received sanctioned amount from respondent. Hence, complainant wrote letter to respondents on 25/2/2009, 5/3/2009 to send it to his address. Complainant spent medical charges above Rs.1 lakh, but in need of money, respondent has not paid any amount. Invested amount is for security purpose but his invested amount not used at this situation. It amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, complainant is entitled to Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. Hence he is entitled to the claim amount with interest from the respondents, so point no. 1 is answered in Positive, point no.2 is answered in Positive but accordingly.
24) Point No.3: In view of the finding on points 1 & 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
22) The complaint is allowed in part. The complainant is entitled to FD matured amount of Rs. 1,14,388/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 27/2/2009 till its realization and Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment along with Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings, as such respondent-1 is liable to pay the above said amount to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Claim against respondent no. 3 is dismissed.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 28th day of March 2010)
(Shri.S.L.Matti) (Smt.Vijayalakshmi.M) (Shri. Shekhargouda Patil)
Member, Member, President,
Dist.Consumer Forum, Dist.Consumer Forum, Dist.Consumer Forum
Dharwad. Dharwad. Dharwad.
msr
[HONORABLE Shekhargouda Patil]
PRESIDENT
[HON'ABLE MRS. Vijayalakshmii M]
Member
[HON'ABLE MR. S.L.Matti]
Member