State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., vs Dattatray Shankarrao Borgaonkar, on 16 January, 2012
1 F.A.No.:648,725/2010
Date of filing :29.10.2010
Date of order :16.01.2012
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :648 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 226 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Dattatray Shankarrao Borgaonkar,
R/o Parijat Building, 39, Bhagyanagar,
Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Complainant )
VERSUS
Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Arth Complex, Kesarsingpura,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Opponent )
Date of filing :12.11.2010
Date of order :16.01.2012
FIRST APPEAL NO. :725 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 226 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
Arth Complex, Kesarsingpura,
Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opponent)
VERSUS
Dattatray Shankarrao Borgaonkar,
R/o Parijat Building, 39, Bhagyanagar,
Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant)
2 F.A.No.:648,725/2010
CORAM : Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Complainant in person, Adv.Shri.S.N.Lavekar for Opp.bank.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. The present appeals are the cross appeals and have been emerged from the same judgment and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by Dist.Forum Aurangabad in C.C.No.226/2010. In appeal No.648/2010 appellant is Shri.Dattatraya Shankarrao Borgaonkar who was the original complainant (hereinafter termed as "complainant") whereas in appeal No.725/2010 appellant is Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. which was original respondent( hereinafter termed as "respondent bank"). Since the issue involved in both the appeals is same we have decided to dispose of these appeals by way of common judgment and order.
2. The facts leading to both these appeals are briefed as under.
That, the complainant had invested Rs.4 lakhs in long term deposit in Kranti Chowk Branch and Rs.3 Lakhs were invested in TV Centre branch of respondent bank. It was contended that during the pendancy of term deposit the Branch Manager of the said TV Centre branch vide letter dated 10.4.2007 informed the complainant that all the term deposits of Rs.3 Lakhs in his branch and deposit of Rs.4 lakhs of Kranti Chowk branch have been earmarked against outstanding loan obtained by one Shri.Vinayak Dattatraya Wagh partner of M/s Vividha Vastra Niketan and Dilip Kamlakar 3 F.A.No.:648,725/2010 Sakalgaonkar partner of Relax Cold Drinks and Snacks and it was informed that unless the loan is cleared amount of term deposit could not be paid. It was contended by the complainant that he was surprised to have received such letter from the branch of respondent bank and he immediately replied vide letter dated 28.8.2007 stating that he had nothing to do with said loan and therefore it was illegal to earmark his term deposit against the said loan. It was further contended by the complainant that after maturity period of the term deposit he had vide his letters dated 4.7.2009. 10.08.09, 23.09.2009 requested to return the maturity amount of his term deposits by depositing the same in his saving account. However respondent bank did not take any action in paying his amount of maturity amount of term deposit. He had therefore requested the Chairman of the respondent bank vide his letter 22.08.2009 for depositing his maturity amount in his saving account. In response to his said letter the respondent bank returned the amount of term deposit but there was inordinate delay of 6 months. He therefore approached to respondent bank vide his letter dated 27.1.2010 requesting the interest on the delayed payment of maturity amount to the tune of Rs.47,500/- alongwith interest @ 1 % p.m. on the said interest amount and Rs. 2 lakhs. However there was no response from the bank. Therefore he issued legal notice dated 13.2.2010 to the respondent bank to pay him the interest of Rs.47,291/- on the maturity amount of term deposit from the date of maturity till the said amount was deposited in his saving account. In addition he had also demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs for himself and Rs.50,000/- each to the joint partners of the said term deposits for the mental harassment and also 1% p.m. interest on the amount of said interest on Rs.47,291/-. It was further contended by complainant that even after receipt of legal notice no steps were taken by respondent bank and therefore he approached to the Dist.Forum seeking direction to the respondent bank to pay him interest amount of Rs.47,291/- and in addition Rs.473/- i.e. 1 % interest p.m. on the amount of said interest.
4 F.A.No.:648,725/20103. Respondent bank appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It was submitted that although complainant had kept amount of Rs.7 lakhs in term deposit in both branches, the receipt of term deposits were kept as lien on his oral instruction against the loan amount advanced by respondent bank to his relatives who were running the shop of one Shri.Vividha Vastra Niketan and Relax Cold Drinks and Snacks. It was contended that since both the loanee were in arrears of loan amount, the term deposit of the complainant were not paid on the date of maturity. Secondly the delay in paying maturity amount was caused due to delay in decision of the board of directors of respondent bank. It was further submitted that respondent bank was ready to pay Rs.47,500/- as an interest on the maturity amount of said term deposit. However complainant rejected to accept the said amount and demanded unreasonable amount for compensation. Thus since the respondent bank was already willing to pay the amount of interest of Rs.47,000/-, there was no deficiency in service on their part. Therefore complaint be dismissed.
4. Dist.Forum after going through the papers and hearing parties partly allowed the complaint and directed respondent bank to pay amount of interest Rs.47,500/- @ 9% p.a. interest from 9.3.2010 onwards till the realisation of the amount. It was also directed to pay him Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- towards cost.
5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order complainant filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation whereas respondent bank filed appeal for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order.
6. Both the appeals were finally heard on 16.12.2011. Adv.S.N.Lavekar appeared for respondent bank whereas complainant 5 F.A.No.:648,725/2010 appeared in person. Both the complainant as well as respondent filed their written notes of arguments also. We heard Adv.Lavekar as well as complainant in person at length. It was submitted by complainant Shri.Borgaonkar that without any written consent from him it was alleged by respondent bank that his both the term deposits amounting to Rs. 7 lakhs were earmarked against loan amount sanctioned to Shri.Dattatraya Vinayak Wagh and Dilip Kamlakar Sakalgaonkar which has caused mental harassment to him. Secondly it was also contended that after maturity of the term deposit he had presented his receipt of the deposits to the bank and had requested to return maturity amount and to deposit the same in his saving account. But inspite of continuous follow up the respondent bank delayed for about 6 months to give him his maturity amount and therefore there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank. However Dist.Forum by its impugned judgment and order awarded only meagre amount of compensation i.e. Rs.16,000/- and hence requested to allow the appeal and to award him compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs towards mental torture suffered by him.
7. On the other hand learned counsel Shri.Lavekar for respondent bank submitted that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable on the ground that the said term deposit were in the joint name of the complainant and his daughter. However he had not made party to his daughter. Therefore complaint should have been dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Secondly, it was also contended that transaction of term deposit made by complainant were with the branch of respondent bank and therefore said branch having separate entity should have been made party in the present complaint. Therefore on this count also appeal requires to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent vide his letter dated 23.4.2010 has himself admitted to have received Rs.47,291/- as amount of interest for the delayed payment of fixed deposit. It was also averred that complainant vide 6 F.A.No.:648,725/2010 his letter dated 5.2.2001 had intimated to the bank that in default of payment by M/s Shri.Vividha Vastra Niketan had informed him so that problem in their account could be solved jointly. He therefore contended that loan was sanctioned to Shri.Vividha Vastra Niketan on the guarantee of the complainant. He further contended that bank was already prepared to pay amount of interest Rs.47,291/- on the delayed payment. However instead of accepting the said amount he filed complaint before Dist.Forum which is not maintainable. Thus on all these grounds learned counsel Shri.Lavekar contended that Dist.Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint. However Dist.Forum passed the impugned judgment and order erroneously which should be quashed and set aside. In support of his abovesaid contentions the learned counsel Shri.Lavekar relied on the following citations.
i) A.J.Yuvaraj -Vs- Dy.General Manager,Syndicate Bank and Anr. reported in II(1999) CPJ 449 in which the Andhra Pradesh State Commission has held that, "Bank-Branches-Separate and distinct entities from head office and each other".
ii) Lucknow Dev.Authority -Vs- Kamalkant Dubey and Anr. reported in III(2000) CPJ 303 in which the Uttar Pradesh State Commission has held that "When interest is granted it is not necessary to grant compensation".
iii) Union Bank of India -Vs- Ajaib Kumar reported in
II(2003) CPJ 186(NC) in which it is held by the
Hon`ble National Commission that "maturity
amount not paid-contention, FDR Kept under lien towards guarantee issued in favour of excise commissioner-lien of FDR not proved- O.P.liable to pay FDR amount with interest calculated on year to year basis".7 F.A.No.:648,725/2010
iv) Bank of Baroda -Vs- Gitaben Baldevbhai Raval & Ors. reported in IV(2003) CPJ 356 in which it is held by the Gujrat State Commission that "
compensation for mental agony can not be awarded in contractual transaction."
8. We have gone through papers as well as oral submission put forth by learned counsel for respondent and also complainant in person. It is an admitted fact that amount of Rs.7 lakhs was kept in long term deposit with the branches of the respondent bank. It is also admitted that there was delay of about 6 months in returning maturity amount of said term deposit and respondent bank has already shown it`s willingness to pay Rs.47,291/- as interest amount on the delayed payment of said term deposit. Question is only about the amount of compensation towards mental torture which the complainant had to suffer due to letter issued by the TV Centre branch of respondent bank dated 10.4.2007 claiming that all his term deposit of Rs.7 lakhs were earmarked and were kept as lien for the loan sanctioned to Vinayak Dattatraya Wagh and Sakalgaonkar who were stated to be relatives of complainant. In fact it is revealed that there is no any documentary evidence to show that those term deposits were kept as lien against the said amount of loan. It was therefore improper on the part of respondent bank to claim lien or earmarking of the said term deposits without consent of investor i.e. complainant. Secondly it has also revealed that there was delay of about 6 month for returning amount of term deposit. The reason given for the delay by the respondent bank is that the decision of the Board of Director`s was pending. It is therefore clear that the branches of the respondent bank were not in a position to take independent decision and they are under the control of the respondent bank which is a main branch. The contention of the learned counsel Shri.Lavekar that the branches have separate entity can not therefore be accepted. The ratio given in the citations relied on by the learned 8 F.A.No.:648,725/2010 counsel Shri.Lavekar refers to different circumstances and hence not applicable in the present case. Thus respondent bank can be said to have committed deficiency in service as is rightly held by Dist.Forum. The amount of compensation as awarded by Dist.Forum also appears to be sufficient and therefore we do not find any reason for enhancement of the same. In the circumstances we confirm the order passed by Dist.Forum. Hence, we pass the following order.
O R D E R 1. Both the appeals are dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora Member Presiding Member Mane