State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sourendra Nath Dutt vs Regional Manager, State Bank Of India on 31 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1010/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/09/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/217/2016 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. Sourendra Nath Dutt 171/A, Bidhan Sarani, P.S.- Burtolla, Kolkata - 700 006. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Regional Manager, State Bank of India Region-II, Regional office - 1, Middleton Street, 10th Floor, P.S.- Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071. 2. Br. Manager, S.B.I Jorasanko Br., 1/1A, Nanda Mullick Lane, P.S. - Girish Park, Kolkata - 700 006. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: In-person/, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Somnath Mukherjee., Advocate Dated : 31 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 08-09-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata II (Central) in C.C. No. 217/2016 whereof the complaint has been dismissed.
In short, case of the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum was that one term deposit stood in the name of Gobindo Lal Dutta, since deceased, matured on 08-05-1981. Father of the Complainant, i.e., Madan Mohan Dutta, since deceased, who was the executor of the will of his elder brother Lt. Gobindo Lal Dutta, by a letter 09-03-1984 asked the OP No. 2 to renew the said term deposit for another 36 months. Despite receipt of said letter the OP No. 2 did not act upon such request of Complainant's father, since deceased. On the other hand, due to pendency of probate proceeding, his father could not encash the said Term Deposit. Ultimately, the said probate proceedings reached its finality on 21-01-2000 and probate of said will was granted by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta on 21-09-2002. Further case of the Complainant was that a notice was served upon the bank concerned by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant on 14-11-2002 whereby the OP No. 2 was asked to calculate up to date interest on the term deposit. In reply, the OP No. 2 vide its letter dated 17-12-2002 informed that it was ready to pay savings bank interest as against Complainant's claim for interest applicable for term deposit. Hence, the complaint.
Case of the OP, on the other hand, was that in case of failure of the account-holder to renew the term deposit concerned on its maturity, customer is entitled to get interest as applicable to savings account. In this case, as the term deposit was not renewed in time, the beneficiary was not entitled to FD interest for the entire period of default. Further contention of the OP was that an executor has got no right over the property concerned and he cannot ask the banker of the deceased depositor to act in one way or the other during pendency of probate proceedings. Differently put, the Bank was not duty-bound to act upon the request of the father of the Complainant, since deceased.
Decision with reasons According to RBI Rules, one needs to renew a Term Deposit within 14 days of maturity date to get the benefit of continuation from the date of maturity. In case one fails to do so within the aforesaid period, the term deposit is treated as overdue deposit. How much one would get for such overdue deposits, entirely depends on Rules and Regulations of individual Banks because RBI has given full autonomy to individual Banks in this regard.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Term Deposit was not renewed in time. Accordingly, the Appellant cannot find fault with the Respondents while there is nothing on record to show that the Respondents adopted any discriminatory attitude towards the Appellant by offering him to pay interest on overdue deposit at the rate as applicable for savings bank.
It appears that the Ld. District Forum found fault with the Respondents over its disinclination to provide statement of account to the Appellant. Given that probate proceedings reached its finality on 21-02-2000 and copy thereof was furnished before the Respondents, it was obligatory on the part of the Respondents to provide the desired information/statement of account to the Appellant, who was one of the beneficiaries of said term deposit.
In my considered opinion, the decision of the Ld. District Forum in the facts and circumstances of the case is perfectly in order and as such, the same does not call for any sort of intervention from this end.
The Appeal, accordingly, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D That A/1010/2016 be and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. Parties do bear their respective costs. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER