VIJAYA BANK vs M S Narayana Rao

I .A.No.6457 of 2014 This is an application impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1. The counsel who appears for the legal representatives has no objection to the application being allowed. The application is allowed and the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 are brought on record. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. R.P. No.1653 OF 2011

THE complainant/respondent deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ - with the petitioner bank vide FDR No.049116 dated 02 -07 -2004. The aforesaid FDR was renewed on 25 -07 -2005, 22 -01 -2007 and 26 -03 -2008. The case of the petitioner bank is that the complainants had also taken a loan/overdraft of Rs.3,50,000/ - for their business requirement, offering the aforesaid FDR as a security for the said loan. The case of the complainants is that when they approached the bank for payment of the amount which they had deposited by way of FDR, payment was not made to them and the manager told them that there was a balance amount of Rs.50,000/ - to their credit which had been adjusted towards loan taken by them. The case of the petitioner bank in this regard is that when they asked the complainants, for repayment of the loan taken by them, they wrote a letter to the bank on 12 -06 -2008 authorising it to close the fixed deposit and adjust the maturity amount in their loan account. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.4,47,183/ - which was outstanding in the loan account was adjusted and the balance amount of Rs.47,484/ - was credited to the savings bank account of the complainants.

THE complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking accounts of the FDR in question. They also sought payment of Rs.2,00,000/ - from the bank along with compensation and cost of litigation. The complaint was opposed by the petitioner bank primarily on the ground that the complainants had taken overdraft facility from the bank and later requested it to close the overdraft facility by adjusting the amount which was due to them against the FDR. They had accordingly adjusted the amount outstanding in the loan account, out of the proceeds of the FDR and the balance amount credited to the saving bank account of the complainants.

During the pendency of the complaint the petitioner bank filed an application seeking permission to place on record several documents evidencing grant of overdraft facility to the complainants against FDR in question. The said application was allowed by the District Forum subject to payment of cost. However, the cost imposed by the District Forum while allowing the said documents to be placed on record was not paid. As a result the District Forum did not take the said documents into consideration and by way of order dated 30 -07 -2010, it gave the following directions:

"The complaint filed by the complainants is hereby allowed in part with cost of Rs.1,000/ -.

The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to furnish the detailed account statements of FD Account No.1318/270032 and SB

Account No.991 to the complainants.

The opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay to the complainants the matured value of FD No.1318/270032 Exhibit D4 with further interest at the same agreed rate from the date of maturity i.e.26 -03 -2009 till the date of the complaint less the amount of Rs.47,484/ - remitted to SB Account No.991/Exhibit D7 of complainant No.1."

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the bank is before us by way of this revision petition.

THE learned counsel for the petitioner bank has led us through the documents purporting to have been executed by the complainants in its favour. One of the aforesaid documents is a letter of lien, whereby the bank was requested to grant over draft facility to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/ - to the complainants. The aforesaid documents bears an endorsement by the concerned branch manager sanctioning credit limit of Rs.3,50,000/ - against the FDR in question. The next document filed by the petitioner bank is an application purporting to be signed by the complainants on 04 -07 -2004 seeking financial assistance from the bank against the FDR in question which at that time was due on 02 -07 -2005. Yet another document filed by the petitioner bank was a written request made on the FDR itself and purporting to be signed by the complainants requesting the bank to close the FD as well as overdraft account and transfer the remaining amount to the savings bank account of the complainants. The petitioner bank has also placed on record a copy of the letter dated 12 -06 -2008 purporting to be written by the complainant to the bank requesting it to close the FDR as well as overdraft account and credit the balance amount to their savings bank account No.991.

IN our opinion, the aforesaid documents which the bank had filed before the District Forum, and which could not be considered on account of failure of the bank to pay the cost, are most vital documents for the purpose of deciding the complaint in question. If the petitioner bank is able to prove the aforesaid documents, that would demolish the entire case set out in the complaint and would firmly establish that in fact the complainants had taken overdraft facility from the bank against the FDR in question and later on they had requested the bank to close both, the FDR as well as overdraft account, and transfer the balance amount to their savings bank account. We, therefore, allow the aforesaid documents to be taken on record subject to the petitioner bank paying a sum of Rs.20,000/ - as cost to the complainants. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner bank to prove the aforesaid documents in accordance with law. The cost imposed upon the petitioner bank shall be paid within four weeks from today by way of a pay order/demand draft in the name of respondent No.2, Smt. N. Subbamma. The parties shall appear before the concerned District Forum on 25 -03 -2015. The District Forum shall decide the complaint afresh within three months of the parties appearing before it.