State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of Patiala, City Branch, ... vs Gopal Krishan Singla S/O Shri Ram Dass ... on 11 September, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1732 of 2002
Date of institution: 23.12.2002
Date of decision : 11.09.2009
State Bank of Patiala, City Branch, Kikar Bazar, Bathinda through Chief Manager.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Gopal Krishan Singla s/o Shri Ram Dass r/o Singla Bhawan, Near Brokers
Park, Malviya Nagar, New Basti, Bathinda.
2. The Regional Directorate, National Savings (Govt. of India) 3007-3008,
Sector 22-D, Chandigarh through Director.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 21.11.2002
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.V.K.Diwan, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for
Sh.Ashok Jindal, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh.Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Gopal Krishan Singla respondent No.1 (in short "the respondent) was having Public Provident Fund Account No.25 with the appellants which was opened on 31.03.1978. He deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- in this account on 05.07.1996 and again deposited an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- on 03.08.1996.
2. It was further pleaded that the appellants had credited the interest amount of Rs.1,11,980/- on 08.04.1997. However, only an amount of Rs.45,101/- was credited on account of interest on 11.04.1998. The appellant again credited an amount of Rs.1,57,730/- as interest amount on 08.04.1999 but again deposited the lesser amount of Rs.50,331/- on 03.04.2000 on account of interest upto 31.03.2000.
First Appeal No.1732 of 2002 2
3. It was further pleaded that on 03.04.2000, the respondent visited the office of the appellants for completion of his passbook. He was told by the officials of the appellants that the respondent will not get the interest on the amount more than Rs.60,000/- in one financial year which has been deposited in the PPF account. The respondent had also deposited Rs.60,000/- in his PPF account and Rs.4,80,000/- were over and above Rs.60,000/-. The respondent was entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- also as permissible under the PPF scheme. The appellant withdrew the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- on 11.04.2000. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "the District Forum") claiming compensation, interest and costs.
4. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent was having public provident fund account No.25 with the appellants which was opened on 31.03.1978. It was also admitted that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- with the appellants vide cheque dated 01.05.1996, an amount of Rs.90,000/- vide cheque dated 05.07.1996 and another amount of Rs.3,90,000/- vide cheque dated 03.08.1996. The respondent was entitled to interest in PPF account only upto an amount of Rs.60,000/- and he was not entitled to any interest in PPF account on the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- deposited by him.
5. It was further pleaded that the amount was deposited by the respondent in excess fully knowing that the PPF interest was not payable on the amount over Rs.60,000/- in a year. It was further pleaded that the amount is remitted to the Government account immediately after the same is deposited with the appellants. Therefore, the appellants have not used this amount deposited by the respondent. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any interest on this amount. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on their part and hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
First Appeal No.1732 of 2002 3
6. Respondent No.2 also filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the respondent was entitled to interest in the PPF account only upto an amount of Rs.60,000/- in a year and not over and above that amount. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The respondent filed his affidavit Ex.C/1. He also proved documents Ex.C/2 to Ex.C/9. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Subhash Chander Singla, Chief Manager as Ex.R/1 and also proved documents Ex.R/2 to Ex.R/13. Respondent No.2 also filed the affidavit of M.K.Malhotra, Regional Director as Ex.R/14.
8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1000/- vide impugned order dated 21.11.2002 and the appellants were directed to pay interest at the applicable rate on the excess amount deposited by the respondent in his PPF account from the date of deposit till the date of payment. However, the complaint against respondent No.2 was dismissed.
9. Hence, the appeal.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the interest is payable only on an amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited in PPF account in one financial year, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to any interest on the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- deposited by him over and above Rs.60,000/-. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2002 be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
12. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
13. The factual position is not in dispute that Gopal Krishan Singla respondent No.1 held PPF account No.25 with the appellant bank which was First Appeal No.1732 of 2002 4 opened by him on 31.03.1978. He had deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 01.05.1996, another amount of Rs.90,000/- on 05.07.1996 and a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- on 03.08.1996 with the appellant bank. The passbook for that purpose is proved as Ex.C/9 in which all these entries have been made.
14. The appellants have proved the Government instructions on PPF scheme as Ex.R/13 as per which, only an amount of Rs.60,000/- can be deposited in PPF account in one financial year which would earn interest @ PPF rate. It is specifically mentioned that the excess amount would be refunded by the accounts office to the subscriber without any interest.
15. The identical question of law had arisen before the Hon'ble National Commission as to what rate of interest should be awarded on the amounts which have been deposited in excess of the permissible limit. In Revision Petition No.2180 of 2004 (The Senior Post Master v. Alvind Industries) decided on 01.09.2009, it was answered by the Hon'ble National Commission by holding as under : -
"We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Kisan Vikas Patras could not be purchased in the name of HUF and that, the purchase of the Kisan Vikas Patras by the respondent was irregular. The respondent would not be entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- on maturity. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has kept the money deposited by the respondent and utilized it for all this period, in equity, we direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- which was deposited by the respondent, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as has been held in consultation with Government of India in certain other cases, from the date of deposit till the amount is/was paid to the respondent."First Appeal No.1732 of 2002 5
16. The same analogy of law will apply to this case. It is, therefore, held that the respondent would be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till the amount was withdrawn by the respondent on 11.04.2000.
17. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that this money was not utilized by the appellant bank and was remitted to the Government account immediately after the deposit. Hence, it was prayed that the appellant bank is not liable to pay any interest on this amount.
18. This submission has been considered.
19. Admittedly, this amount was deposited by the respondent with the appellant bank and the appellant bank accepted this amount over and above the amount of Rs.60,000/- which was permissible. Since the appellant bank accepted the money against the rules, therefore, the appellant bank is answerable to the consumer and is liable to pay compensation for the deficiency in service in the form of 6% interest per annum. However, the appellant bank would be at liberty to recover the amount from the Government in accordance with law, if so advised.
20. Accordingly, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2002 is modified to the extent that the appellant bank would be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.90,000/- and on the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- from the date of deposit till 11.04.2000 when this amount was withdrawn by the respondent.
21. The costs of Rs.1000/- are maintained.
22. The arguments were heard in this case on 08.09.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
23. 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 September 11 , 2009.
Paritosh