National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs B.V. Ramana Murthy on 24 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ108(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 5.3.2007 of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad partly allowing Appeal Nos. 1700 of 2005 filed by the petitioner and 1875 of 2005 preferred by the respondent against the order dated 27.4.2005 of a District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent with direction to the petitioner-bank to pay interest on 10,82,463 @ 9.5% p.a. from 1.4.2001 till realisation, deposit the interest amount of Rs. 2,37,756 in PPF A/c No. 156 and pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent. In appeal, award of compensation of Rs. 25,000 was deleted and respondent No. 1 was held to be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs. 2,37,756 which has been debited to his account and rest of the order of District Forum was affirmed.
2. Respondent/complainant who had retired from service on 30.9.1998, after receipt of retired benefits of Rs. 10.73 lakh deposited in his PPF A/c No. 156 with Basheerbagh branch of the petitioner/opposite party-bank the amounts of Rs. 2,12,000 on 26.10.1998, Rs. 54,500 on 30.10.1998, Rs. 1,04,000 on 30.10.1998 and Rs. 7,11,963 on 15.10.1999. Petitioner credited interest on the deposited amounts till 31.3.2001. Respodent alleged that sometime in the month of June 2001, the Manager of said branch of the petitioner informed him that there was problem in accepting the said amounts in his PPF A/c and he should, therefore, transfer it to the Retiring Employees Saving Schemes (RESS). The rate of interest in this scheme was 9.5% p.a. which was also the rate of interest in PPF A/c. Respondent gave a letter to the petitioner-bank on 22.6.2001 for transfer of money in RESS. On 21.8.2001, the respondent received a letter from the petitioner stating that the amount cannot be transferred from PPF A/c to RESS. On 24.8.2001, the petitioner informed the respondent that it has rectified the excess interest paid upto 31.3.2001. Respondent alleged that he was never informed that the maximum ceiling for deposit in PPF A/c was Rs. 60,000. Thus, claiming certain reliefs the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner. It was pleaded that the respondent is not entitled to any interest on the deposit exceeding Rs. 60,000 p.a. and the respondent should have been aware of the provisions of PPF Act/Scheme.
3. Contention advanced by Mr. S.L. Gupta for the petitioner is that in view of the limit of subscription to PPF account of not more than Rs. 60,000 in a year, the respondent is not entitled to interest on the deposits made in excess thereof. The respondent was supposed to be aware of the provisions of PPF Act and the scheme framed thereunder by the Government. Further contention advanced is that the petitioner-bank was/is an agent of Reserve Bank of India on whose behalf the deposits were accepted and though the matter was taken up by the petitioner bank with RBI for transfer of the amount from PPF A/c to RESS but the RBI did not permit the transfer. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent deposited Rs. 2,12,000 on 26.10.1998, Rs. 54,500 on 30.10.1998, Rs. 1,04,000 again on 30.10.1998 and Rs. 7,11,963 on 15.10.1999.Excepting the deposit of Rs. 54,500 the remaining three deposits were in far excess of the ceiling of Rs. 60,000 which could have been made in a PPF A/c in a year by any subscriber. Bank official receiving the said money in said PPF A/c No. 156 must have been aware of the maximum ceiling of Rs. 60,000 in a year still the said deposits were received by him in violation of the Scheme/Act. Not only that even interest on the entire amount was credited in the respondent's account upto 31.3.2001. Further, letter dated 22.6.2001 (copy at page 65) given by the respondent to the petitioner-bank would show that on knowing that amount of not more than Rs. 60,000 can not be deposited in PPF A/c in a year, the respondent requested the bank to transfer the deposited amount to Retiting Employees Saving Scheme. Reply to the letter dated 21.8.2001 (copy at page 63) sent by the petitioner-bank to the respondent would indicate that the respondent's request for transfer of excess deposit to RESS was declined by the bank. It would be unfair on the part of the bank to retain the deposited money and still not paying interest thereon. To be only noted that the petitioner has not filed the correspondence exchanged with the RBI for alleged transfer of the deposited amount to RESS. Orders passed by Fora below are totally silent on this issue. In the facts and circumstances of case, the petitioner can not be heard to say that it being only an agent of RBI is not liable to pay interest on the deposits in question.
4. Thus, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Revision is, therefore, dismissed.