State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V.Sarojini Devi And Others vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 26 May, 2010
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 1414 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.802 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD Between 1. V.Sarojini Devi W/o late V.Chandra Sekhara Naidu Aged about 61 years, 2. Dr.V.V.S.Choudhary S/o alte V.Chandrasekhara Naidu aged about 47 years 3. V.Venkata Ramana Prasad S/o late V.Chandrasekhara Naidu aged about 43 years ( All are R/o R/o 7-131, Shanthi Nagar, Tirupathi-517502, Chittoor District 4. K.Seshu Kumari late K.Chandra Sekhara Naidu aged about 57 yrs, Diguvamagnam Village & Post, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor Dist. Appellants/complainants A N D Punjab & Sind Bank rep. by its Branch Manager Metro Estate, Abid Road Hyderabad-001 Respondent/opposite party Counsel for the Appellants Sri G.Manohar Counsel for the Respondents Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order (Per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereof the complaint was dismissed as barred by limitation.
The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that Doctor Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao was the deposit holder of the opposite party bank. He had no children. He and his wife Sarojini died on 31st May,1993 in an accident leaving behind them the mother of Venkateshwer Rao namely Sundaramma who expired on 25th April, 1990. The complainants no.1 and 4 are the daughters of late Sundaramma. She executed Will dated 25th January,1990 bequeathing her properties in favour of the complainants no.1 to
3. The complainants no.1 to 3 filed O.P.No. 885 of 1990 and a suit in O.S.No. 8 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which were decided by a common judgement dated 28th July,2000 whereby the suit was decreed and the O.P was partly allowed leading to filing of C.M.A before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The C.M.A. was ended in compromise where under the complainants no.1 to 3 were entitled to 50% of the Bank deposits whereas the complainant no.4 was entitled to 10 % of the Bank deposits. The opposite party was a party to the proceedings.
The complainants requested the opposite party to pay the amount with interest to them. The opposite party bank sent a letter to Doctor A.Lajpatrai who is the respondent no.2 in the C.M.A. No. 2228 of 2001 that the total amount to the credit of Venkateshwer Rao is Rs. 16,70,026/-. The complainants got issued legal notice dated 5th July,2003 to the opposite party for payment of the amount with interest. The opposite party issued reply on 25th July,2003 that a sum of Rs.10,07,210.50 was payable to all the legal heirs of the late Venkateshwer Rao. The complainants got issued another notice bringing to the knowledge of the opposite party that the Reserve Bank of India had issued circular DBOD No.DIR BC 08/13.03.00/2001-02 dated 11-02-2001 giving instructions to all the Banks to pay interest at the applicable rate on deposit, after the period of maturity. As per the award passed by the Banking Ombudsman against it, the Indian Overseas Bank paid interest on deposits standing to the credit of late Venkateshwer Rao.
The opposite party issued reply dated 25th Septemeber,2004 to the notice stating that after settlement of claim of Anumolu Trust an amount of Rs.5,17,000/- plus Rs.4,45,020/- plus Rs.45,120/- totaling to Rs.10,07,210/- is payable to the legal heirs of the late Venkateshwer Rao.
The opposite party resisted the claim contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the Bank is not made party. The branch manager is only a functionary of the Bank. The matter was compromised before the High Court on 24th January,2002. The legal notice was sent on 5th July,2003. As such the complaint was barred by the law of limitation. The Bank was not made a party to the compromise petition in C.M.A.No.2228 of 2001. The Bank had given reply dated 25th July,2003 to the complainants stating that the deposits were made available with its extension counter, Secunderabad in the year,1983 and after closure of the extension counter, all the deposits were transferred to its Branch office, Abid Road, Hyderabad. As per the decision of the court, 50% of the amount was paid to the executor of Anumolu Trust and the balance 50% of the amount was kept in the suspense account. Of the amount kept in the suspense account, 50% has to be paid to the complainants no.1 to 3 and the residue was to be distributed among the five legal heirs of late Venkateshwer Rao.
The sanctioning authority clarified that no interest is to be paid as 50%of the deposit amount was already paid and for the remaining 50%of the amount, the claimants have not been coming forward due to the dispute among themselves. The amount would be paid to them on submission of 1.Notarised claim form-218, 2.letter of indemnification from the bank where the claimant has his account, duly verifying his signature, and 3. Two passport size photographs of the claimant duly signed by his banker. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India no interest is payable on the amount lying in sundry or suspense account.
In its reply dated 25th September,2004, the Bank has stated that Sarojini Devi executed Will bequeathing all her properties in favour of Anumolu Trust with S.Narasimha as the executor and managing trustee of the Trust. The Trust, on the basis of letter of administration obtained from the court, has approached the Bank for settlement of the claim. The matter was carried to the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission in C.D.No.188 of 1993 and 189 of 1993. The claim was settled upholding the offer of the Bank. The Trust approached the Ombudsman for payment of interest. After the settlement of the account with the Trust, the balance amount was kept in sundry deposit account for payment as and when the litigations is settled. In terms of the compromise, 50% of the available money was to be shared by the complainants no.1 to 3 in the ratio of 1/3 each and the balance 50%available money shall be shared by A.Ramakoteshwer Rao, A.Lajpathrai, Bopanna Baby Sampurna Devi, G.Rajyalaxmi and K.Seshukumari in the ratio of 1/5th each. Rs.1,67,88/- each is to be paid to the complainants no.1 to 3. And out of the remaining 50% balance amount, Rs.1,00,721.05ps each is to be paid to 1.A.Ramakoteshwer Rao,2. A.Lajpathrai, 3.Bopanna Baby, Sampurna Devi,4. G.Rajyalaxmi and 5.K.Seshukumari. There was no direction from any court or request from the claimants to invest the amount in fixed deposit. The circular referred to by the complainants is not applicable to this case as the fixed deposits were encashed and pending litigation part of the maturity amount was paid to the beneficiaries.
The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents ExA1 to A11. On behalf of the opposite parties, no document had been filed.
The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the interest on the deposits after the period of maturity?
2. Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation?
3. To what relief?
POINT NO1&2 The complainants have been claiming interest for the post maturity period on the deposits made by late Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao who along with his wife Sarojini expired on 31st May,1993 in a car accident that occurred in the United States of America. There is no dispute in regard to the deposits made by late Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao with the opposite party bank. It is not in dispute that Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao left behind him his mother Sundaramma. Infact, the Circuit Court of Marion Country, west Verginia,USA declared that the estate of the deceased Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao devolved upon his mother. The complainants and the other lega hiers of Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao approached the civil court claiming share in the estate of Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao.
Though the complainants and other legal heirs of Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao fought among themselves, they have no claim over the 50% deposits bequeathed by Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao and his wife in favour of Anumolu Trust. The complainants, in terms of the compromise decree passed by the High Court had claimed their share in the remaining 50% amount from the opposite party.
The learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the complainants are entitled to the interest for the post maturity period of the deposits. He has contended that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation as the letter, ExA8 dated 25-09-2004 was dispatched on 8-10-2004 and received by the counsel for the complainants on 11-10-2004 and the complaint filed on 27-09-2006 was within the period of two years from the date of cause of action. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation and the complainants are not entitled to any interest on the deposits for the post maturity period since the circular of the Reserve Bank of India, DBOD No.DIR BC 08/13.03.00/2001-02 dated 11-02-2001 is not applicable, for half of the deposit, after the period of maturity was withdrawn by the beneficiary, Anumolu Trust. Therefore, the dispute in narrow compass is in regard to the interest during the post maturity period of deposits and the plea of limitation for filing the complaint. The District Forum has not gone into the aspect of the interest on the deposit as it dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
The Reserve Bank of India, according to the complainants, had issued circular, DBOD No.DIR BC 08/13.03.00/2001-02 dated 11-02-2001 giving instruction to the Banks to pay interest on deposit, after the period of maturity. The copy of the circular is not placed on record.
The opposite party has not denied the circular in question. The defence of the opposite party bank is that the interest is not payable for the post maturity period as the 50%of the amount covered under the deposits was withdrawn by Anumolu Trust. There is no denying the fact that half of the amount covered under the deposits was withdrawn by Anumolu Trust. The circular of the Reserve Bank of India mandates payment of interest on the deposit after the period of maturity. The complainants had not claimed the amount immediately after the date of maturity. There are two options for the Bank to deposit the amount for a certain period which the opposite party, in the absence of any request from the nominee or the legal heirs, could not do and the other option is to pay the interest till payment of the amount to the beneficiary. The circumstances of this case are quite peculiar that half of the amount on maturity was already paid to Anumolu Trust. There was dispute for the remaining half of the amount among the legal heirs of the late Anumolu Venkateshwer Rao, pending in the District Court which ultimately ended in compromise. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainants have not requested for reinvestment of the amount nor was there any order from the Court and in such circumstances; the balance amount was kept in sundry account. The complainants had not denied that the amount kept in sundry account does not fetch any interest. Admittedly, the balance amount was kept in sundry account which is incapable of accruing of any interest.
The complainants got issued notice dated 5th July,2003 requesting the opposite party to pay the amount due along with interest. The opposite party issued reply dated 25th July,2003 to the effect that no interest is payable on the amount and the amount payable to all the legal heirs of the deceased Venkateshwer Rao is Rs.10,07,210.50. The complainants had got issued another notice on 30th August,2004 claiming interest on the basis of the circular DBOD No.DIR BC 08/13.03.00/2001-02 dated 11-02-2001. The opposite party has given a reply dated 25th September,2004 reiterating its version that no interest is payable on the deposit amount left over after the half of the amount on maturity was paid to Anumolu Trust. The complaint has to be filed within two years from the date of the cause of action. The complaint was filed on 27-09-2006 and after complying with the objections it was resubmitted on 11-10-2006. The complaint is not filed within the period of limitation. The complainant has not filed any petition to condone the delay in filing the complaint.
In view of the discussion made above, the complaint fails for the reason that the interest is not payable on the amount due to the complainants from the opposite party and the complaint is hit by the rigour of the Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.26.05.2010 KMK*