GRAMEENA BANK LTD. vs CHERUKU ROOPA

THE complainant in O.P. No. 124/1995 District Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with the opposite party Bank on 30.5.1995 under a short term deposit for 45 days as evidenced by Ex. A-l. Alleging that when the complainant approached the Bank during the second week of August, 1995 for payment of the maturity value, the opposite party failed to pay the same and instead sent a legal notice Ex. A-2 dated 26.8.1995 stating that an amount of Rs. 55,392/- was paid to the Commercial Tax Authorities on 19.6.1995. She, therefore, filed the above complaint for payment of the maturity value together with Rs. 2,000/- towards additional expenses, Rs. 4.500/- towards interest paid by her on loan and Rs. 1,000/- towards legal expenses.

THE opposite party-Bank in its counter stated that the complainant''s husband deposited a sum of Rs. 56.250/- on 21.11.1994 under TDR No. 047254 for the purpose of bank guarantee to the Excise Superintendent on behalf of M/s. Uma Wines, Jagadevpoor. During the period of guarantee the Commercial Tax Authorities issued a distraint notice under Section 17 of the APGST Act on 12.1.1995 and 22.3.1995 asking the respondent-Bank to withhold the deposit. THE Excise Department released the bank guarantee. THEreupon according to the opposite party, the husband of the complainant added further sums in order to make up a sum of Rs. 60.000/- and took a fixed deposit in the name of the complainant i.e. his wife. THE Commercial Tax Authorities came to the Bank on 19.6.1995 threatened and collected an amount of Rs. 55,392/- towards the Sales Tax arrears due from the complainant''s husband and hence the Bank is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant on the maturity of deposit amount. The District Forum held that the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of Commercial Tax Department as opposite party, and the complainant is a consumer. On merits, the District Forum held that the opposite party issued fixed deposit receipt in the name of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 60.000/-. Admittedly no conditions were attached to the fixed deposit receipt Ex. A-l about any undertaking that it was subject to the dues payable by the husband of the complainant to the Commercial Tax Department and that therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the matured value of Rs. 60.756/- with interest at 10%p.a. from 15.7.1995 till payment and awarded costs of Rs. 500/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party.

IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant''s husband was due to the Commercial Tax Department towards payment of Sales Tax and the Commercial Tax Department issued notices Exs. B-l and B-2 dated 11.1.1995 and 12.1.1995 informing the Bank that M/s. Uma Wines of which the complainant''s husband is the proprietor owed to the Commercial Tax Department a sum of Rs. 16,553/- and Rs. 99.681/- respectively and requested the Bank not to pay the amount due and payable to the tax payer from the Bank from the date of notice and as out of the bank guarantee amount released to the complainant''s husband the fixed deposit receipt in question was obtained in the name of his wife and as the Commercial Tax Department threatened the Bank and collected the amount there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. The Commercial Tax Department issued notice under Section 17 of the APGST Act on 11.1.1995 and 12.1.1995 to the Bank and the bank guarantee was released on 26.5.1995 as evidenced by Ex. B4. It was only on 30.5.1995 the complainant opened an account with Rs. 60.000/-. Thus by the date of acceptance of deposit in the name of the complainant, the Bank was aware that the complainant''s husband owed to the Government the amount mentioned in the notices i.e. Exs. B-l and B-2 towards Sales Tax and inspite of such notice, the Bank opened the account and accepted the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 60,000/- in the name of the complainant. The opposite party received subsequently Exs. B-5 and B-6 notices under Section 17 of the APGST Act stating that the Excise Superintendent, Medak released the bank guarantee, and therefore, asked the Bank to pay the Sales Tax arrears due through Excise Superintendent, Medak released the bank guarantee, and therefore, asked the Bank to pay the Sales Tax arrears due through demand draft in favour of undersigned i.e. Commercial Tax Officer out of the bank guarantee given by the complainant''s husband. But it is to be seen by that date the bank guarantee was closed. It is the case of the opposite party that by threat the Commercial Tax Department collected the amount of Rs. 55,392/- on 19.6.1995 towards arrears of Sales Tax due from the husband of the complainant. It is also the case of the opposite party that the husband of the complainant failed to keep his promise to pay the arrears of Sales Tax on the basis of which the bank guarantee was released and the amount was credited to the account of the complainant. Since the deposit receipt is in the name of the complainant and as the complainant does not owe any amount to the Commercial Tax Department and that even after receiving the notice on 11.1.1995 and 12.1.1995, the Bank released the guarantee and an account was opened by depositing the amount of Rs. 60,000/-, in the name of the complainant, we are satisfied that the opposite party-Bank has to pay the amount due under the fixed deposit receipt to the complainant and failing to pay the same will amount to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

WE, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.