State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Industrial Development Bank Of India, ... vs Mr.B. Ravi, 1-B, Pavithra Apartments, ... on 28 June, 2012
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Honble Thiru Justice R.REGUPATHI, President Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, Judicial Member Thiru.S.Sambandam, Member. F.A.No.300/2011 [Against order in C.C.No.194/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)] THURSDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JUNE 2012. 1. Industrial Development Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager, Sona Building, No.37, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 2. Industrial Development Bank of India, Represented by its Vice-President, Government Business & Wealth Management (Operations) Plot No.82/83, Road No.7, Street No.15, MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093. Appellants/Opposite Parties 1 & 2 /Vs/ Mr.B. Ravi, 1-B, Pavithra Apartments, Rajagopalan Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties 1 & 2 : M/s. N.K. Sri Raman, Advocate. Counsel for Respondents/Complainant: Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate. The appeal having come before us for final hearing on 18.06.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following :- ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants.
2. The complainant had deposited two amounts for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- under the Government of India Relief Bonds Scheme in the year 2002 for which the opposite parties have paid interest up to January 2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- but stopped interest for the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- due for January 2007 and when enquired, the opposite parties sent cheque for Rs.1,03,033/- on 16.03.2007 and also debited Rs.46,967/- from the principal amount. Hence consumer complaint was filed in which the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay interest at Rs.1,50,000/- at the rate of 8% from January 2007 till the date of closure i.e., August 2007 and to refund a sum of Rs.46,967/- wrongly deposited and also sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant contended that the deposits were accepted under the Government of India Scheme as per notification issued by the Government of India. The complainant even though claimed to be a retired employee of the bank and only for those persons the scheme was eligible without restriction for the deposit limit for Rs.2,00,000/- and since the complainant deposited apart from Rs.2,00,000/- another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for which necessary documents relating to the pension details required by the circular were not produced by the complainant and in view of the RBI audit objections the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was refunded after deducting the interest at Rs.46,967/- already paid and the District Forum without considering the details of circular allowed the complaint.
4. Per contra, the respondent/complainant contended that complainant being the voluntarily retired employee of the Punjab and Sind Bank and he had deposited the retirement benefits within three months from the date of retirement as per the circular and the deposit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- is not applicable to him being the retired employee and arbitrary deduction of interest already made paid for 4 years for the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- without giving necessary details and intimation to the complainant, the opposite parties have deducted the amount which made the complainant to address various letters to the opposite parties which are not responded. Hence, the District Forum passed well considered order which needs no interference.
5. While considering rival contentions of both sides, it is not in dispute that the complainant served as an employee of Punjab Sind Bank at the time of deposits made in the year 2002 and since his voluntary retirement withdrawal request was not accepted by the bank which lead to file Writ Petition by the complainant and in the meanwhile as per the directions from the Supreme Court, he was provided with VRS benefits with some conditions and on receiving the same deposits were made to the opposite party bank are all revealed and on perusal of records submitted by the complainant before the District Forum. Further, when the opposite parties accepted the two deposits on the same day and paid interest without any dispute for the 1st deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- up to 2007 as per the period of bond and as far as the 2nd deposit is concerned for Rs.1,50,000/- for which also after accepting the same interest was paid for four years up to 2006 and when the complainant not received interest for the same for January 2007, he came to know that in view of circular, the deposit was returned after deducting the interest already paid which is disputed. Even as per the arguments of the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled for the deposit of the amount in the scheme beyond Rs.2,00,000/- since the amount was accepted as deposit for another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as deposit when it was found against the circular B1, such acceptance of the amount of deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- ought to have been either returned to the complainant or advised to deposit in any other scheme and this was not done and kept for more than 4 years and deposit accepted by the financial institutions under a particular scheme is bound to pay interest as per the agreed terms and in this case, it was given for 4 years and suddenly stopped without any intimation to the depositor and also already paid interest was deducted from the deposit amount. This act would certainly amounts to deficiency of service and depriving the depositors to forego the interest for the money deposited after 4 years on the basis of circular which was not communicated or informed to the depositor.
6. On the basis of circular refunding the deposit as defective one will not be a valid ground for acceptance of appeal in view of the foregoing reasons. In those circumstances, we are of the view, from the materials available, that the District Forum passed well considered order and finding in this regard need not be disturbed. As far as the award of compensation and the costs ordered by the District Forum is concerned, we are of the view that they could be reduced to a reasonable extent since the opposite parties are directed to refund the interest deducted and also to give further interest till the date of closure of deposits and thereby we are reducing the compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and costs from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/-. As far as the interest awarded by the District Forum for the period from January 2007 till August 2007 is concerned for the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- since the complainant received cheque for Rs.1.03,033/- on 16.03.2007 itself, the District Forum erroneously ordered interest to be paid up to August 2007. Hence, it should also be rectified to pay interest up to 16.03.2007 in stead of August 2007.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum as follows: (1) the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay interest on a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- at the rate of 8% per annum from January 2007 to 16.03.2007 to the complainant and (2) the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.46,967/- being the amount deducted from Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the complainant and (3) the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and (4) Rs.3000/- as costs. All the amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till the payment. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
S. SAMBANDAM. A.K.ANNAMALAI, R. REGUPATHI, MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT Index Yes/No D/TCM/Bench-I/June