IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER C.C.No.08/2017 Date of complaint filed : 10.02.2017 Date of orders pronounced : 12.12.2023 S.Mahendran, S/o Sankaranandham, 2-C, NGGO Colony, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. Complainant -Vs-

1. The Canara Bank, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Head Office at J.C.Road, Bangalore. 1st Opposite Party

2. The Canara Bank, Madurai Circle Office, Represented by its General Manager, East Veli Street, Madurai. 2nd Opposite Party

3. The Canara Bank, Srivilliputhur Branch, Represented by its Senior Manager, Srivilliputhur. 3rd Opposite Party

4. Banking Ombudsman, Tamilnadu and Union Territories of Pondicherry and Andaman Nicobar islands, 2nd Floor, Fort Glacies, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1. 4th Opposite Party Counsel for Complainant : M/s.J.Abiramasundari, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Parties-1to3 : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Party-4 : Ex-Parte.

This complaint came before me for final hearing on 28.08.2023 and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The complainant’s case :

The complainant is one of the NRI customer of the third opposite party/Canara Bank. He made some FCNR (Foreign Currency Non Resident) deposits with the third opposite party/canara bank branch office. The complainant also availed loan by pledging some deposits receipts. The opposite parties without informing the complainant automatically renewed the above said deposits. Similarly the opposite parties failed to appropriate the loan amount from the above said deposits pledged by him. So that the loan amount was exceeded than the pledged deposits amount. The opposite parties/bank after notified by the internal Auditor Committee appropriated the loan amount from other deposits also. The bank at its discretion and obligation can close the loan well within the period of maturity and thereby precluded the complainant suffering from monitory loss. So the action of the opposite parties/bank in not appropriate the loan amount within the maturity period, and renew the deposits without informing him amounted to deficiency in service. He rightly calculated the above monitory loss as Rs.3,51,000/-, preferred a complaint before the fourth opposite party/bank ombudsman. The banking ombudsman finding the opposite parties/bank committed deficiency in service passed an award, on 31.08.2000. The opposite parties/bank even thereafter did not comply the Ombudsman award but after a very long period preferred writ petition No.10799/2002 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. The opposite parties/bank left the matter unattended and prolonged the above Writ for more than 13 years. Finally the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ and directed the opposite parties/bank to comply the award passed by the Banking Ombudsman. The bank instead of complying the above order had preferred a Writ Appeal No.1698/2015 and it was also dismissed on 02.02.2016.

The complainant again and again sent a letters to pay him the actual loss suffered with interest and finally the second opposite party/bank on 24.02.2016 sent a letter along with Demand Draft for Rs.11,23,276/-. But as per the calculation of the complainant the bank was liable to pay Rs.1,01,78,917/- till February 2016. Hence their failure to pay remaining balance, inspite of requisition amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which the opposite parties/bank is liable to compensate for the monetary loss sustained by him and he fixed the compensation as Rs.75,00,000/- and also claimed cost of the proceedings.

2. The second opposite party filed their written version adopted by the first and third opposite parties admitting the facts with regard to deposits, loan, and Writ Proceedings. It is further contended by the opposite parties/bank that