State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chairman,The Sangamner Merchant vs Arun Madhavrao Aaher on 31 August, 2009
1 F.A. No..: 149-05
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 17.01.2005
Date of Order : 31.08.2009
FIRST APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2005
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 208 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AHMEDNAGAR.
1. Chairman,
The Sangamner Merchant's
Co-op. Bank Ltd., Sangamner,
New Nagar Road, Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. General Manager,
The Sangamner Merchant's
Co-op. Bank Ltd., Sangamner,
New Nagar Road, Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Appellants
- VERSUS-
Arun Madhavrao Aaher
Snehankit, Chitrakut Vasahat,
Popale Mala, Near B.Ed College,
Sangmner, Ahmednagar-422 605. ... Respondent
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. R.P. Adgaonkar, for appellant.
Adv. Shri. I. S. Thorat, for respondent.
2 F.A. No..: 149-05
:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Shri S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the original opponent Sangamner Merchant's Co-op. Bank Ltd., Sangamner against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2004 in complaint case no.208/2004 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar.
2. The respondent/complainant's case before the Forum is that, the appellant Bank had introduced Sanjeevani Deposit Scheme.
Under the said scheme the depositor was to invest Rs. 25, 50, 100 or multiples of 100 for the period of 102 months and after completion of the period depositor is to accept the entire amount together with the interest accrued there on in one lump sum or to accept the monthly installment of double amount of initial investment. It is contended that the complainant was attracted by the scheme floated by the Bank and participated in the scheme and started depositing the amount of Rs.500/- per month by opening the account no.427. It is contended that, the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.500/- regularly upto January-2004 from April, 1999. It is contended that in the month of February, 2004 when he went to deposit the amount he was asked to sign the form to accept lump sum amount after completion of the period of the scheme. The complainant had sent the amount of 3 F.A. No..: 149-05 Rs.500/- by cheque through registered post. The same was not accepted and thus the complainant approached the Forum.
3. The present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that, as per clause-6 of the scheme option was available to the depositor to discontinue the said scheme and to get refund of the amount invested by him together with interest payable on saving bank account. It is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. It is contended that, Board of Directors of the appellant decided to revise the terms of the said scheme in February,2004, accordingly vide letter dated 13th February,2004 the complainant was offered the revised terms as per decision of the Board of Directors. The complainant refused to accept the said terms. It is contended that, the Bank was forced to revise the terms of the said contract between the parties on account of unforeseen circumstances that is in falling interest rates as per the policy and guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India which was introduced from time to time. It is contended that, as per directories of the Reserve Bank of India Bank can not accept any deposit for the period longer than ten years.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the appellant allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to accept the monthly installments from the complainant and to continue the 4 F.A. No..: 149-05 said scheme as pr alleged assurance. The Forum also directed the appellant to pay Rs.500/- towards the mental agony and Rs.500/- towards the cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the Sangamner Merchant's Co-op. Bank came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as the respondent. The learned counsel Shri. R.P. Adgaonkar appeared on behalf of appellant and Shri. I. S. Thorat, appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard both the counsels at sufficient length. The learned counsel Shri. Adgaonkar submitted that as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India the Bank can not accept any deposit for period longer than 10 years. He further submitted that Bank was compelled to revise the terms of the said scheme on account of unforeseen circumstances that is falling interest rates as per the policy and guidelines of RBI. The learned counsel submitted that, the dispute in question is not tenable in the Consumer Fora's. He further submitted that it has become impossible for the Bank to operate the scheme in question and thus non-performance of the contractual obligation because of impossibility of performance can be an excuse. The learned counsel in that respect relied on Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd., vs. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mill Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1841.
5 F.A. No..: 149-05
7. On the other hand learned counsel Shri. Thorat submitted that the scheme in question was floated by the appellant. At the time of floating the scheme all terms had been considered by the Bank. He further submitted as the appellant opened the account bearing no. 427 in appellant Bank and started depositing Rs.500/- per month, he became the consumer. The Bank had agreed to provide the services of paying monthly installment of double amount of initial investment after completion of period in question. As the Bank refused to accept the monthly investment after about completion of five years of scheme the Bank committed deficiency in not accepting the monthly investment. He fully supported the judgment and order passed by the Forum.
8. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the counsels. On perusal of papers it reveals that, the appellant Bank had introduced Sanjeevani Deposit Scheme in the year 1981. Under the said scheme the depositor was to invest the amount of Rs. 25, 50, 100 and multiples of 100 for the period of 102 months. After completion of said period the depositor had option either to accept the amount together with interest accrued there on in one lump sum or to accept monthly installment of the double amount of initial investment. It also appears that option was available to the depositor to discontinue the said scheme and to 6 F.A. No..: 149-05 get refund of the amount invested by him together with interest payable on saving bank account.
9. In the instant case, the respondent/complainant was attracted by the scheme floated by the appellant Bank, and he opened the account no. 427 with appellant Bank. He started investing the amount of Rs.500/- upto Jan.2004. It is also apparent that the Bank had accepted the monthly investment of Rs.500/- from the complainant. The appellant Bank had agreed to provide the services of paying the monthly installment of double amount of initial investment of the complainant. In the month of Feb.2004 the Bank refused to accept monthly investment of Rs.500/- from the complainant. When the Bank started the scheme Bank might have considered unforeseen circumstances i.e. falling of interest rate. As the respondent was investing the amount of Rs.500/- per moth and as the Bank had accepted to provide the service to pay monthly installment of the double amount of the initial investment, the respondent/complainant became the consumer and the Bank became the service provider. It appears that the Bank unilaterally decided to revise the scheme in question and asked the complainant to accept the entire amount together with interest accrued there on in lump sum, and refused to pay the monthly installment of double amount of initial investment after completion of scheme amounts to deficiency on the part of Bank. Nothing is brought on record to show that Bank had 7 F.A. No..: 149-05 reserved the right to modify the terms and conditions of the scheme unilaterally at any time. Not to investment as per scheme floated by the Bank is deficiency on their part. There is also no dispute that the investment scheme was for 102 months which is less than 10 years. Certainly it can not be said to be against the directives of Reserve Bank of India that the Bank shall not accept the deposit for a period longer than 10 years. The Bank had agreed to pay the monthly installment of the double amount of initial investment to all the depositors of the scheme in question. Thus, it can not be said there was a discrimination made by the Bank in respect of rate of interest paid to such a depositors. Noting is brought on record to show that the impossibility has arisen for not providing the services as agreed after completion of the period. Bank had floated the scheme considering all process and conditions. The impossibility of performance on the part of Bank can not be the excuse for not performing the obligation which the Bank had undertaken by the scheme on the ground of falling interest rates. The ratio in Industrial Financial Corporation (Supra) is not helpful to the appellant. Forum below has considered all these aspects in right perspective and rightly allowed the complaint. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Forum. We pass the following order. 8 F.A. No..: 149-05
:: O R D E R ::
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the cost of Rs.2000/- in appeal.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties.
Era vocation (Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh) Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar