##PAGE1##

1

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 501 OF 2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.113/2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, KARIMNAGAR

Between:

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bank Street Branch, 4-1-427, Bank Street, Hyderabad -500 001.

………..Appellant/ Opposite Party

And:

1. Muthyam Agaiah Goud, S/o Late Rajaiah,

Age : 75 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o H.No.4-54, Julapally Village,

Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District (Died on 02.05.2017).

2. Muthyam Laxmi @ Laxmibai, W/o Late Agaiah Goud,

Aged 60 years, Occ.: Household, H.No.4-54, Julapally Village in Kamanpur Mandal of Karimnagar District.

3. Muthyam Ravinder Goud, S/o Agaiah Goud, Aged 36 years, Occ: Agrl. H.No.4-54,

Julapally Village, Kamanpur Mandal of Karimnagar District,

(Impleaded as per IA No.61/2017, dated 16.08.2017).

……Respondents/ Complainants No.1 to 3

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. Mannava Sravan Kumar

The Respondent/ Complainant No.1 : Died on 02.05.2017.

Counsel for the Respondents/ Complainant No.2 & 3 :

M/s. M.Aravindu – R2 & R3

2

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER – (NON JUDICIAL)

MONDAY, THE 06th DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX

*******

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed U/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar dated 29.10.2020 in CC 113/2016 where under the opposite party was directed to pay the complainant the fixed deposit maturity amount of Rs.2,02,500/- with accrued interest from the date of maturity till realization and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs within

one month from the date of receipt of this orders.

2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainants and opposite party.

3. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant was having a SB Account with opposite party from 17.10.1981 and invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.11.1986 under Multi Benefit and old age Deposit vide receipt No.QUB-107917. It was deposited jointly in his name and in the name of his son Mutyam Rajender Goud. The Complainant claims he was unwell and approached the opposite party with an intention to withdraw the invested amount along with accrued interest. He submitted the application on 02.11.2015 but he received no reply from the opposite party. Thereafter several letters were submitted to the opposite

party bank but he did not receive any reply from them. Vexed with their

3

attitude, he made an application before the Banking Ombudsman and received a reply from the opposite party on 21.01.2016 stating that the above claim cannot be entertained after a lapse of about 28 years from the date of deposit and 22 years after date of maturity and the claim amount is not outstanding in their books. It is his grievance that the opposite party is trying to evade the payment of deposited amount with interest and for this deficiency in service, he has approached the District

Commission for redressal.

4. a) The opposite party submits that the claim of the complainant is hopelessly time barred. It is a fact that the complainant was having a savings account with their bank from 17.10.1981 but it was transferred to “DORMANT” category as the complainant had stopped operating the account for a long time. No evidence is available from the records to establish the fact of depositing the amount in the shape of fixed deposits as claimed by the complainant, hence, the claims made under FDR NO.’s QBU-107916 & QBU-107917, dated 03.01.1986 by the complainant are

declined by this opposite party bank.

b) It is a fact that the complainant has submitted a complaint through the Banking Ombudsman office situated in RBI, Hyderabad on 09.11.2015. The Ombudsman after examining the claim of the petitioner as well as replies submitted by the respondent bank has finally disposed