State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs S.C. Grover on 25 September, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 25.09.2007 Appeal No. A-07/474 (Arising out of Order dated 08-03-2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Case No. 865/2006) State Bank of India Appellant 11, Sansad Marg, Through New Delhi. Mr. Arun K. Sharma, Advocate Versus Mr. S.C. Grover Respondent R/o LU-102, In person Vishaka Enclave, Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. The respondent has appeared on his own as well as by way of caveat and argued the matter and as such appeal is being decided on merits.
2. Admittedly the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.17,82,000/- under the Deposit Scheme for Retired Govt. Employees, 1989 which was a Tax Free Scheme. Under such scheme the rate of interest was 8.5% p.a. and interest was to be credited to the account of respondent on 1st of June and 1st of July every year till 2005. In January 2003, the respondent got his account transferred to the Sansad Marg Branch of the appellant-bank.
3. Vide letter dated 23.09.05 the appellant informed the respondent that his account was maturing on 30.01.06 and no interest would accrue after that date. On 03.01.06 the respondent visited the appellant bank to get his pass book updated.
It was on that date that he was told that his account had ceased to earn any interest after 1st of July, 2005 on which date it matured.
Respondent closed his account on 03.01.06 and the appellant bank paid him by of a cheque Rs. 22,73,201/-. Since the appellant bank did not pay any interest for the period 01.07.05 to 02.01.06, the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum for payment of the said interest.
4. Vide impugned order dated 08.03.2007 the District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the appellant to pay an interest on the sum of Rs. 22,73,201/- for six months @ applicable to the fixed deposits at the relevant time and also pay Rs. 10,000/- for the inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. According to the appellant the deposit was accepted under the Deposit Scheme for Retired Govt. Employees, 1989 and that the Govt. of India vide its notification published in Gazette of India on 13.08.2004 discontinued the aforesaid scheme w.e.f. 13.09.2004 and passed the instructions that deposits in accounts of the scheme which had matured on or before 13.09.2004 would cease to earn any interest after 13.09.04 and deposits in accounts which matured after 13.09.04 would not earn any interest for the period after the date of maturity i.e. on expiry of three years from the date of deposit and accordingly the respondent was allowed interest for a period of three years till the date of maturity i.e. 01.07.05. as to the letter dated 23.09.05 informing the appellant that his account was maturing on 30.01.06. This letter clearly envisages the applicable notification. Further, that the date 30.01.06 mentioned as maturing date was only for business promotion and cannot be construed as the valid date of maturity by the appellant.
6. It is contended by the Ld. counsel for the appellant that the confusion as to the date of maturity arose because of the transfer of account from Chennai Branch to Sansad Marg Branch of appellant whereas the actual date of maturity was 03.05.2005 and not 01.07.2005 and since the account was transferred on 30.01.2003, the clerk of the appellant-bank due to inadvertence considered the date of maturity as January 2006 and calculated the interest accordingly. It is further contended by the counsel that so far as the notification published in the Gazette of Govt. of India on 13th of August, 2004 is concerned there was no requirement of sending any letter to the respondent informing him about the clarification and therefore the impugned order suffers from infirmity inasmuch as that the respondent was not at all entitled to any interest in view of the nature of the deposit and the notification published in Gazette.
7. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that the District Forum has assumed the date of maturity as 30th June, 2005.
On enquiry from the respondent as to the date of maturity no assistance has been provided nor the respondent has disclosed as to the date of maturity. In view of this the date of maturity as projected by the appellant has to be accepted as correct.
8. In the instant case the date of maturity has to be held as 3rd May, 2005 and rightly so as there was every possibility of a clerk getting confused as to the date of maturity because of the transfer of the account from the Chennai Branch to Sansad Marg Branch in 2003.
9. However, it was incumbent upon the appellant-bank to refund the amount deposited by the respondent before the date of maturity in view of the notification published in the Gazette of Govt. of India on 13th August, 2004 and discontinue this scheme w.e.f. 13th September, 2004 as the retention of the amount beyond this period was illegal and unjustified. For not refunding this amount after the notification, appellant was liable to pay interest at the agreed rate upto the date of maturity and at the saving bank rate after the date of maturity. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that under the scheme, the appellant-bank was entitled to close the account before the date of maturity as the nature of account was that it had ceased to earn interest for the period after the date of maturity is acceptable only to the extent that the appellant is liable to pay interest at the agreed rate upto the date of maturity and for its act of omission in not refunding or paying the maturity amount it is liable to pay interest at the saving bank account as the contract between the parties as to the rate of interest was upto the date of maturity.
10. In our view any communication sent by the appellant bank to the respondent against the actual date of the maturity has no relevance or no effect because it is the actual date of the maturity which is a relevant fact and no other communication and no other date.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion we partly allow the appeal by modifying the impugned order to the following terms:
The appellant shall calculate the interest upto the date of maturity i.e. May, 2005 at the agreed rate and thereafter shall calculate the interest on the saving bank rate from the date of maturity till the date of this order and pay the balance amount if any, to the respondent. Rest of the order is maintained.
12. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
14. Announced on 25th day of September, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc