State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala vs Khuswinder Pal Kaur Wife Of Shri Ajit ... on 23 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 280 of 2004
Date of institution : 15.03.2004
Date of Decision : 23.12.2009
State Bank of Patiala a body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India
(Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959. Having its Head Office at the Mall Patiala (Punjab) and
one of its Branch at Bargari District Faridkot through R K Bansal Manager State
Bank of Patiala, Bargari District Faridkot.
........Appellant.
Versus
Khuswinder Pal Kaur wife of Shri Ajit Singh son of Roor Singh resident of 708, Urban
Estate, Phase-I, Bathinda.
.....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 04.02.2004 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Faridkot.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for ` Sh. H.N. Mehatani, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Varinder Arora, Advocate for Sh. Ravinder Jain, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by State Bank of India(in short 'the appellant') against the order dated 04.02.2004 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,(in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent deposited Rs.4,76,458/- with the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bargari vide FDR No.724549 dated 30.3.99 for 36 months and the Bank was required to pay Rs.6,79,315/- at the time of maturity. Another sum of Rs.3,93,041/- First Appeal No.280 of 2004 2 was deposited by the respondent with the appellant vide FDR No. 724544 dated 24.3.1999 for three years and Rs.5,60,382/- were to be paid at the time of maturity of Fixed Deposit Receipt. The appellant made payment of both these FDRs on the maturity. The respondent also deposited Rs.4,00,000/- vide FDR No.772627 on 5-3-2002 for 36 months and Rs.5,53,914/- were payable at the time of maturity of the FDR. When the payment of FDR No.772627 became due the appellant avoided to make the payment and then a notice was sent by the respondent to the appellant on 18.3.03 for making payment of the FDR. On receipt of the notice the appellant 1 and 3 sent a draft of Rs.5,00,823.52 paise in discharge of FDR No. 772627. It has been further stated that the respondent was entitled to get the payment of Rs.553914/- of the FDR and thus the appellant had withheld a sum of Rs.53090/-. It has been further stated that when the respondent got two FDRs prepared the rate of interest agreed was 12% per annum. The respondent has already received the maturity amount of the two FDRs and the appellant has now withheld the payment of Rs. 53,090/- on the ground that the rate of interest of the other FDRs had been reduced from 12% per annum to 10.50% per annum on the date on which the FDRs wre prepared and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to get the refund of Rs.53090/-. This act of the appellant was nothing else but a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and it was prayed that the appellant be directed to refund Rs. 53,090/- and also demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of damages.
3. In the written statement filed by the appellant it has been stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The appellant was bound by the directions/instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and that the complaint as such First Appeal No.280 of 2004 3 was not maintainable. It has been admitted that the respondent deposited the amount of the FDRs but inadvertently the rate of interest on the FDRs was mentioned as 12% per annum instead of 10.50% per annum w.e.f. 15.3.99 as reduced vide circular letter dated 15.3.99 issued by the State Bank of Patiala. It has been further stated that as the rate of interest of 12% per annum instead of 10.50% per annum was erroneously mentioned in the two FDRs, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to get the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on those two FDRs, the payment of which had been received by the respondent erroneously from the appellant. It has further been stated that as the appellant had made excess payment of Rs.53,090/- to the respondent in respect of two FDRs, therefore, the appellant was justified to deduct Rs.53090/- from the third FDR No.772627 dated 5.3.2000 of Rs.4,00,000/-. It has been admitted that a draft for a sum of Rs.500823-52 paise was given to the respondent and a sum of Rs.53090/- was deducted from the FDR and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and hence the complaint be dismissed.
4. Hence the appeal
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, accepted the complaint.
6. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the respondent deposited Rs. 4,76,458/- with the appellant vide F.D.R. No. 724549 dated 30.3.1999 for 36 months and Rs. 3,93,041/- vide F.D.R. No. 724544 dated 24.3.2009 for 36 months. The appellant was required to pay Rs. 6,79,315/- against the 1st FDR and Rs. 5,60,382/- against the 2nd FDR at the time of maturity of both the FDRs.
First Appeal No.280 of 2004 4
7. It is also no dispute between the parties that the respondent also deposited Rs. 4,00,000/- vide F.D.R. No. 772627 on 5.3.2002 for 36 months and the maturity amount of Rs. 5,53,914/- was payable of the same but the appellant paid only Rs. 5,00,823.52p and withheld Rs. 53,090/- on the ground that Rs. 53,090/- were paid in excess against the maturity amounts of the first two FDRs inadvertently @ 12% per annum against the rate of interest of 10.50% per annum, which was applicable at the time of deposit of the amounts of the said FDRs by the respondent with the appellant bank.
8. It is also admitted case of the appellant that the rate of interest was mentioned as 12% per annum on the FDRs Annexure 'B' and Annexure 'C', which were issued by the appellant to the respondent on 30.3.1999/29.3.1999 and 24.3.1999 and the payment of the maturity amounts were also paid to the respondent @ 12% per annum. When the rate of interest was reduced by the Reserve Bank of India from 12% per annum to 10.50% per annum. The letter Annexure RA was also issued by the General Manager, State Bank of Patiala as per the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India.
9. We have perused the letter Annexure RA by which the rate of interest was reduced for NRNR/NRE deposits for one year upto three years from 12% to 10.50% per annum w.e.f. 15.3.1999. The amount of the FDRs was deposited by the respondent with the appellant Bank on 29.3.1999 and 24.3.1999 after the issuance of the letter Annexure RA by the Head Office of the appellant Bank.
10. From the perusal of the letter Annexure RA, there is no dispute that the rate of interest was applicable @ 10.50% per annum instead of 12% per annum, if any depositor deposit the amount in the F.D.R. for the period of 1 year to 3 years.
First Appeal No.280 of 2004 5
11. It is not the case of the respondent that the appellant paid the interest @ 10.50% and not paid @ 12% per annum. It is also not disputed by the respondent that the rate of interest was not applicable @ 10.50% per annum when she deposited her amounts in the shape of FDRs with the appellant Bank.
12. From the above discussion, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant inadvertently paid the interest @ 12% against the rate of interest @ 10.50%, which was applicable at the time of deposit of the amounts in the two FDR's on 29/30.3.1999 and 24.3.1999, for which the respondent was not entitled.
13. The version of the respondent was that the appellant was not entitled to deduct the disputed amount from the maturity amount of the 3rd FDR and if any excess amount was paid by the appellant to the respondent and the appellant could recover the same from the appellant by filing a separate Civil Suit.
14. The appellant also served a notice dated 5.4.2002 upon the respondent to deposit Rs. 53,090/- but the same was not deposited by the respondent with the appellant which is at page No. 119 of the District Forum file, which was paid in excess by the appellant. In the said notice, it was also informed by the appellant Bank to the respondent that if the same will not deposited by the respondent with the appellant then the appellant would deduct the same from the maturity of the 3rd FDR.
15. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 53,090/- in excess to the respondent inadvertently. The appellant Bank was justified and has acted in good faith in the interest of public for deducting the amount of Rs. 53,090/- from the 3rd FDR of the respondent, which was paid excess @ 12% per First Appeal No.280 of 2004 6 annum instead of 10.50% per annum on two earlier FDR's for which the respondent was not legally entitled. The amount of Rs. 53,090/- was deducted by the appellant as per the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India as well as; as per the instructions of its Head Office. We find no deficiency on the part of the appellant Bank.
16. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the appeal of the appellant and the same is accepted. The order of the District Forum is set-aside. No order as to costs.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.12.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal)
President
(Lt.Col.Darshan Singh [Retd.])
Member
December 23 , 2009 (Piare Lal Garg)
As/- vk/- Member