U RAJENDRAN Vs. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal are that there was a Muthukuvial Deposit No. 276 with the Calcutta Branch of the respondent Bank in the joint names of minors R. Mathav Rajan, R. Yazhini and A. Baskaran due for payment on 8.12.1987 for Rs. 10,900/-. There was also a Cash Certificate No. 5 in the above joint names and it was due for payment on 8.12.1988 for Rs. 100/-. There was another Cash Certificate No. 9 in the joint names of minor R. Mathav Rajan and A. Baskaran which was due for payment on 8.12.1987 for Rs. 500/-. There was yet another Cash Certificate No. 10 in the joint names of R. Yazhini (minor) and A. Baskaran which was due for payment for Rs. 500/- on 8.12.1988. The appellant U. Rajendran, who was complainant before the State Commission, Madras is father of the above named minors and brother-in-law of A. Baskaran. According to the allegations in the complaint, when the said deposits became due for payment, the complainant and Shri A. Baskaran made a joint demand to pay the entire amount to the complainant. In spite of numerous letters, demands on phone and by telegrams, the amount was not paid by the Bank. On the other hand, the Bank informed Shri A. Baskaran that the repayment was withheld pending one criminal enquiry against him. It may be mentioned here that Shri A. Baskaran was earlier employed with Calcutta branch of the respondent-Bank and loss had occurred in that branch. (Complaint against him and others was filed under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation was later on taken over by C.B.I, and it is still pending). Shri A. Baskaran and the complainant jointly filed a civil suit for the recovery of the Muthukuvial Deposit. It was filed by the joint depositors, During the pendency of that suit, the complainant filed the complaint, which has given rise to this appeal, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Commission, Madras against the Bank claiming the maturity amounts of the above deposit and the cash certificates with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, compounded quarterly from the date of maturity till payment. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- was also claimed for the suffering and losses alleged to have been inflicted upon him by the willful, fraudulent and negligent acts of the Bank.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that the above referred civil suit was decreed for the disbursement of the deposit amount together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of maturity of the deposit till payment before the filing of the complaint before the State Commission. The decree has since been satisfied by the Bank.

(3.) THE State Commission held that in the civil suit the complainant ought to have claimed compensation for non-payment of the matured amount as it formed part of the cause of action and he can not take advantage of the forum to do so and seek the jurisdiction of this Forum to claim compensation. For arriving at that conclusion reliance was placed upon Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore the claim in respect of the fixed deposit of Rs. 10,900/- and compensation for nonpayment was held not maintainable about the Cash Certificates it was remarked: In respect of the other three amounts, it is admitted that these amounts have been paid on 1.4.1991, and a joint memo has been filed by the Counsel on both sides. The memo is to following effects: