State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Balbir Kumar on 24 May, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 114 of 2008
Date of institution: 08.02.2008
Date of decision : 24.05.2012
State Bank of India, a corporate body constituted under the State Bank of
India, 1955 having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point,
Bombay and one of its Branch Office at Town Hall, Amritsar, District
Amritsar through its Manager and Principal Officer.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Balbir Kumar Ramneek Bajaj HUF, 4-Old Jail Road, Beauty Avenue,
Amritsar through its Karta Shri Balbir Kumar Bajaj.
2. Shri Balbir Kumar Bajaj son of Shri G.S.Bajaj.
3. Smt.Ramneek Bajaj wife of Shri Balbir Kumar Bajaj of Balbir Kumar
Ramneek HUF, 4-Old Jail Road, Beauty Avenue, Amritsar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 01.01.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Mr.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Shri A.K.Khunger, Advocate
For the respondents : Shri S.K.Mahajan, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 1.1.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to pay interest to the complainant on the PPF account at the rate which was applicable to such deposits at the time of First Appeal No.114 of 2008 2 closure of PPF account. They were also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainants is that they formed an HUF of which Balbir Kumar Bajaj is the Karta; that they have opened a PPF account with the appellants; that on 31.3.2006, the credit balance in the account of the complainants was Rs.17,74,454.76 which included interest to the tune of Rs.1,31,441.04. The complainants closed the PPF account of the HUF but only a sum of Rs.16,53,967.14 was paid to them and the interest amount of Rs.1,20,487.62 was withheld by the OPs. The contention of the complainants is that the reasonable opportunity of being heard was not afforded to them and the amount has been withheld illegally, to which, they are entitled. They, therefore, prayed for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,20,487.62 along with future interest thereon and also a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants alleging that after the maturity period of 15 years, no interest is payable on the PPF deposits of the HUF as per directions dated 25.5.2005 of the Reserve Bank of India. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant is the HUF which had opened a PPF account and that a sum of Rs.1,20,487.62 was not paid to the complainant as interest because they were not entitled to the same. The other allegations were denied.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 1.1.2008 allowed the complaint in the manner stated above. The OPs have challenged the same through the present appeal. First Appeal No.114 of 2008 3
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per the circular letter, copy of which is Ex.R2, the PPF account of HUF would be void with effect from May 13, 2005 and, therefore, no interest can be paid thereon. It was in view of this circular letter that the OP-appellants withheld the amount of Rs.1,20,487.62 which was the interest on the said amount accruing after the said date. Such a question arose in case "Senior Superintendent of Post Office and another v. Ashok Kumar HUF" I (2011) CPJ 41 in which on maturity, the complainant was not paid the full amount with interest and the learned District Forum directed the OP- appellants to pay the balance amount. The State Commission directed that the complainant was entitled to 6% interest. The Hon'ble National Commission upheld the order on the ground that since the deposits continued with the OP, it was, therefore, liable to pay interest. The award of interest @ 6% p.a. on the deposited amount after 31.12.2005 was held to be most equitable and rationale and the order passed by the State Commission was upheld. In another case "State Bank of India v. B.V.Ramana Murthy"
I (2008) CPJ 108 (NC), the deposits were made in excess of the limits under PPF account/scheme and the interest exceeding the limit was denied by the bank, it was held that even if the deposits received by the bank officials were in violation of the scheme/Act, it was unfair on the part of the bank to retain the deposited amount and not paying interest thereon. The bank was, therefore, held liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount. In another case "Senior Postmaster, Head Post Office, Thanjavur v. G.Nalini & another", IV (2010) CPJ 201, the irregular account was opened in the joint name and it was alleged that they were not entitled to interest as per First Appeal No.114 of 2008 4 Rule 25 of the PPF. When the complaint was filed, the learned District Forum directed the OP to pay interest @ 12% per annum holding that Rule 6 enables the OP to pay interest even in case of irregular account. The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai held that since the appellants had enjoyed the benefits of the amounts deposited by the complainant, it was bound to pay interest under equity also. The OPs were directed to pay interest @ 9.5% per annum.
8. In view of the above authorities, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.3,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 8.2.2008. This amount of Rs.3,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondents by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER May 24, 2012.
Paritosh