State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi vs M/S Kulbhushan Ashok Kumar on 1 July, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.1358 of 2012
Date of Institution: 10.10.2012.
Date of Decision: 01.07.2015.
State Bank of India, Ferozepur Cantt. through its Manager.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
M/s Kulbhushan Ashok Kumar HUF, Anaj Mandi, Ferozepur Cantt.
through Kulbhushan Karta son of Nand Lal, resident of House no.7,
Street no.1, Ferozepur Cantt.
.....Respondent/complainant
First appeal against order dated
02.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Arya, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Rohit Garg, Advocate
2) First Appeal No.1359 of 2012
Date of Institution: 10.10.2012.
Date of Decision: 01.07.2015.
State Bank of India, Ferozepur Cantt. through its Manager.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
M/s Shadi Ram Kulbhushan HUF, Anaj Mandi, Ferozepur Cantt.
through Ashok Kumar Karta son of Nand Lal, resident of House no.7,
Street no.1, Ferozepur Cantt.
.....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 2
First appeal against order dated
02.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Arya, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Rohit Garg, Advocate
AND
3) First Appeal No.1360 of 2012
Date of Institution: 10.10.2012.
Date of Decision: 01.07.2015.
State Bank of India, Ferozepur Cantt. through its Manager.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
M/s Shadi Ram Nand Lal HUF, Anaj Mandi, Ferozepur Cantt.
through Kulbhushan Karta son of Nand Lal, resident of House no.7,
Street no.1, Ferozepur Cantt.
.....Respondent/complainant
First appeal against order dated
02.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. K.S. Arya, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Rohit Garg, Advocate
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above referred three first appeals, as identical facts and identical questions of law are involved in them and they can be disposed of together First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 3 conveniently. The order shall be pronounced in first appeal no.1358 of 2012 titled as "State Bank of India Vs. M/s Kulbhushan Ashok Kumar HUF".
First Appeal No.1358 of 2012
2. The appellant of first appeal no.1358 of 2012 (the OP in the complaint) has filed this appeal against respondent herein (the complainant in the complaint), assailing order dated 02.08.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ferozepur (in short, "the District Forum"), accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to pay the interest on the amount, which remained lying in the bank for the period from 01.04.2011 to 23.01.2012 at the rate, which was earlier applicable on P.P.F. Account of the complainant and further directed OP to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The instant appeal has been preferred against this order by the OP, now appellant.
3. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint no.158 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant had been holding its Public Provident Fund Account bearing no.10799793006 in the OP bank since the year 1987. It had been depositing the substantial amounts as per Rules. There was considerable balance of a sum of Rs.22,26,064.37 paise in the First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 4 account of the complainant on 31.03.2011. The complainant is the consumer of OP. The account of the complainant was being renewed for five years since 2002. The OP again renewed the same for a term of five years with effect from 01.04.2007, which was conveyed to the complainant from time to time. On 03.05.2011, the complainant required substantial amount and it wanted to withdraw the entire amount from the above said account, but OP insisted that as per rules, the complainant could withdraw upto 60% of the standing amount three years before and not more, as the entire amount could be withdrawn only on 01.04.2012 and not prior thereto. The complainant could withdraw the amount of Rs.8,30,000/- only. The complainant wanted to get its passbook renewed and updated in the month of January, 2012 with the objective that it would deposit the installment of PPF account, if any, but the OP bank told the complainant that their account stood closed as per new Rules. The complainant withdrew the entire remaining amount on 23.01.2012 and got the PPF account in question closed. The OP had not calculated the interest payable on it for the entire financial year from time to time. The complainant wrote letter to OP to making the payment of interest, which was due, but the OP put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OP to pay the interest amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant on the above amount and to pay First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 5 the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
4. Upon notice, State Bank of India being OP filed written reply and contested this complaint on the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. It was further alleged by the OP bank that there is no consumer dispute in this case. The complex facts and law are involved, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings by Consumer Forum. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complainant is a firm. The complainant firm has been holding Provident Fund Account (HUF) bearing no.10799793006 in the OP Bank since 1987. The account got the maturity in the year 2002 and further extended for five years upto 31.03.2007 as per PPF scheme. The Government of India issued notification in February 2005, amending the PPF Rules regarding closure and non-extension of existing PPF (HUF) accounts after their maturity. The branch was migrated to core banking system on 29.05.2005 and there was no restriction/POP up in the core banking system blocking such extension of PPF (HUF) accounts, as per February 2005 amendments. Being unaware of the PPF 2005 amendments, the extension of the aforesaid PPF (HUF) account for a further period of 5 years with effect from 01.04.2007 was allowed. The complainant made regular deposits/withdrawals from the account as per the old scheme. The Government of India issued revised/latest instructions First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 6 of closure of such PPF (HUF) accounts, vide letter no.RBI/2010- 11/578 dated 17.06.2011. No further extension of HUF accounts after maturity was allowed. The complainant has filed the complaint just to extract money from OP bank only. The role of the OP bank is merely that of facilitator on behalf of Director Small Savings Scheme Punjab Chandigarh, RBI, Government of India and Ministry of Finance qua the business of PPF transacted through it. The complaint is, thus, bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Director Small Savings Scheme Punjab Chandigarh, Reserve Bank of India and Government of India. The complaint was also contested by the OP even on merits. It was admitted that complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- from the said PPF account on 03.05.2014 and executed a receipt against signature. As per Rules, complainant could withdraw upto 60% on outstanding amount three years before the maturity date and not more. The complainant requested for closure of PPF (HUF) account on 23.01.2012, which was allowed as per instructions of Government of India. The interest was not credited as per the instructions of Government of India. The OP denied the entitlement of the complainant to claim interest or compensation from OP and, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
First Appeal No.1359 of 2012
5. The appellant of first appeal no.1359 of 2012 (the OP in the complaint) has filed this appeal against respondent herein (the First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 7 complainant in the complaint), assailing order dated 02.08.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ferozepur (in short, "the District Forum"), accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to pay the interest on the amount, which remained lying in the bank for the period from 01.04.2011 to 23.01.2012 at the rate which was earlier applicable on P.P.F. Account of the complainant and further directed the OP to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The instant appeal has been preferred against this order by the OP, now appellant.
6. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint no.157 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant had been holding its Public Provident Fund Account bearing no.10799792999 in the OP bank since the year 1987. It had been depositing the substantial amounts as per rules. There was considerable balance of a sum of Rs.21,71,329.35 paise in the account of complainant on 31.03.2011. The complainant is the consumer of OP. The account of the complainant was being renewed for five years since 2002. The OP again renewed the same for a term of five years with effect from 01.04.2007, which was conveyed to the complainant from time to time. On 03.05.2011, the complainant required substantial amount and it wanted to withdraw the entire amount from the above said PPF account, but the OP First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 8 bank insisted that as per rules, the complainant could withdraw upto 60% of the standing amount three years before, as the entire amount could be withdrawn only on 01.04.2012 and not prior thereto. The complainant, thus, could withdraw the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- only. The complainant went to get the passbook renewed and updated in the month of January, 2012 with the object that it would deposit the installment of PPF account, if any, but the OP then told the complainant that its account was closed as per new Rules. The complainant withdrew the entire remaining amount on 23.01.2012 and got the account in question closed. The OP had not calculated the interest payable on it for the entire financial year from time to time. The complainant wrote letter to OP for making the payment of interest, which was due, but the OP put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OP to pay the interest amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant on the above amount and to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
7. Upon notice, State Bank of India being OP filed written reply and contested this complaint on the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. There is no consumer dispute in this case and the complex facts and law are involved in the case, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complainant is a firm. The First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 9 complainant firm has been holding Provident Fund Account bearing no.10799792999 in the OP Bank since 1987. The account got the maturity in the year 2002 and further extended it for five years upto 31.03.2007 as per PPF scheme. The Government of India issued notification in February 2005 amending the PPF Rules regarding closure and non-extension of existing PPF (HUF) account after their maturity. The branch was migrated to core banking system on 29.05.2005 and there was no restriction/POP up in the core banking system blocking such extension of PPF (HUF) accounts as per February 2005 amendments. Being unaware of the PPF 2005 amendments, the extension of the aforesaid PPF account for a further period of 5 years with effect from 01.04.2007 was allowed. The complainant made regular deposits/withdrawals from the account as per the old scheme. The Government of India issued revised instructions of closure of PPF (HUF) accounts, vide letter no.RBI/2010-11/578 dated 17.06.2011. No further extension of PPF accounts after maturity was allowed. The complainant has filed the complaint just to extract money from OP bank only. The role of the OP bank is merely that of facilitator on behalf of Director Small Savings Scheme Punjab Chandigarh, RBI, Government of India and Ministry of Finance qua the business of PPF transacted through it. The complaint is alleged to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Director Small Savings Scheme Punjab Chandigarh, Reserve Bank of India and Government of India. The complaint was First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 10 also contested by the OP bank even on merits, it was admitted that complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the said PPF account on 03.05.2014 and executed a receipt against signature. As per Rules, the complainant could withdraw upto 60% of the outstanding amount three years before the maturity date and not more. The complainant requested for closure of PPF (HUF) account on 23.01.2012, which was allowed as per instructions of Government of India. The interest was not credited as per the instructions of Government of India. The OP denied the entitlement of the complainant to claim interest or compensation from OP bank and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
First Appeal No.1360 of 2012
8. The appellant of first appeal no.1360 of 2012 (the OP in the complaint) has filed this appeal against respondent herein (the complainant in the complaint), assailing order dated 02.08.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ferozepur (in short, "the District Forum"), accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to pay the interest on the amount, which remained lying in the bank for the period from 01.04.2011 to 23.01.2012 at the rate, which was earlier applicable on P.P.F. Account of the complainant and further directed the OP to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The instant appeal has been preferred against this order by the OP bank, now appellant.
First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 11
9. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint no.156 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant had been holding its Public Provident Fund Account bearing no.10799792988 in the bank of OP bank since the year 1987. It had been depositing the substantial amounts as per Rules. There was considerable balance of a sum of Rs.30,77,533.33 paise in its account. The complainant is the consumer of OP. The account of the complainant was being renewed for five years since 2002. The OP again renewed the same for a term of five years with effect from 01.04.2007, which was conveyed to the complainant from time to time. On 03.05.2011, the complainant required substantial amount and it wanted to withdraw the entire amount from the above said account, but OP insisted that as per Rules, the complainant could withdraw upto 60% of the standing amount three years before, as the entire amount could be withdrawn only on 01.04.2012 and not prior thereto. The complainant could withdraw the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- only. The complainant went to get its passbook renewed and updated in the month of January, 2012 with the object that it would deposit the installment of PPF account, if any, but the OP told the complainant that its account was closed as per new Rules. The complainant withdrew the entire amount on 23.01.2012 and got the account in question closed. The OP had not calculated the interest payable on it for the entire financial year from time to First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 12 time. The complainant wrote letter to OP for making the payment of interest, which was due, but the OP put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OP to pay the interest amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant on the above amount and to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
10. Upon notice, State Bank of India being OP filed written reply and contested this complaint on the preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. That there is no consumer dispute in this case and the complex question of facts and law are involved, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complainant is a firm. The complainant firm has been holding Provident Fund Account bearing no.10799792988 in the OP Bank since 1987. The account got the maturity in the year 2002 and further extended for five years upto 31.03.2007 as per PPF scheme. The Government of India issued notification in February 2005 amending the PPF Rules regarding closure and non-extension of existing PPF (HUF) account after their maturity. The branch was migrated to core banking system on 29.05.2005 and there was no restriction/POP up in the core banking system blocking such extension of PPF (HUF) accounts as per February 2005 amendments. Being unaware of the PPF 2005 amendments, the extension of the aforesaid PPF account for a First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 13 further period of 5 years with effect from 01.04.2007 was allowed. The complainant made regular deposits/withdrawals from the account as per the old scheme. The Government of India issued revised instructions of closure of PPF (HUF) accounts, vide letter no.RBI/2010-11/578 dated 17.06.2011. No further extension of PPF accounts after maturity was allowed. The complainant has filed the complaint just to extract money from OP bank only. The role of the OP bank is merely that of facilitator on behalf of Director Small Savings Scheme Punjab Chandigarh, RBI, Government of India and Ministry of Finance qua the business of PPF transacted through it. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Director Small Savings Scheme Punjab Chandigarh, Reserve Bank of India and Government of India. The complaint was also contested by the OP bank even on merits. It was admitted that complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the said PPF account on 03.05.2014 and executed a receipt against signature. As per Rules, complainant could withdraw upto 60% of the outstanding amount three years before the maturity date and not more. The complainant requested for closure of PPF (HUF) account on 23.01.2012, which was allowed as per instructions of Government of India. The interest was not credited as per the instructions of Government of India. The OP denied the entitlement of the complainant to claim interest or compensation from OP bank and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 14
11. The complainants of above referred complaints tendered in evidence their documents and closed the evidence. As against it, OP bank in above said complaints tendered in evidence the documents and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ferozepur accepted the complaints of the complainants, as stated above. Dissatisfied with the above orders, the OP bank, now appellants in all above referred appeals have carried the appeals against the same.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The matter for adjudication in the above referred appeals is directly and substantially one and the same. It is an undisputed fact in above referred appeals that the complainants opened PPF account with OP bank being HUF concern. The account code maturity was in the year 2002 and it was further extended for five years upto 31.03.2007, as per PPF scheme. The Government of India issued notification in February, 2005 amending PPF Rules and in closure and non- extension of existing HUF accounts. The branch of OP was migrated to core banking system (in short referred to as CBS) on 29.05.2005 and there was no restriction in the core banking system blocking such extension of such PPF (HUF) accounts as per February 2005 amendments and the same was extended in the system automatically. The extension of aforesaid PPF (HUF) for a further period of five years was extended in the system automatically. First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 15 Unaware of the amendment carried out in February 2005, the complainants had been making regular deposits and withdrawals from the accounts as per old scheme, which were allowed.
13. The point of contention arose between the parties, because the OP bank closed the PPF accounts of the complainants. The complainants' grievance is that when the complainants required the withdrawal of the money, only partial amount was allowed therefrom by the OP bank. The OP had not allowed the complete withdrawal of the PPF account to the complainants, when the complainants required the entire withdrawal of the money badly. The grouse of the complainants, when they went to the OP bank, they came to know that OP bank had not credited the interest in the PPF accounts of the complainants after 31.03.2011 on the basis of same notification. The complainants complained in the above cases that no such notification was brought to their notice by the OP bank and hence the non-crediting the interest in their PPF accounts after 31.03.2011 is prima-facie unjustified on the part of OP bank. This controversy falls for adjudication in all the above referred connected appeals before us, because the facts are virtually the common except slight variation of figures of amounts and names of the parties therein.
14. We are required to examine the evidence on the record to settle the controversy between the parties in the above referred First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 16 appeals. The affidavits placed on record in the above referred complaints giving rise to the above said appeals have been carefully examined by us. Similarly, we have also examined the affidavit of Sh. V.K. Gupta, Chief Manager of State Bank of India, vide Ex.R-1 placed on the record in support of pleas of the OP bank. The stand of OP bank is that they were justified in not crediting the interest in the accounts of the complainants on the basis of notification of the Ministry of Finance, vide notification no.GSR956(F) dated 07.12.2010 and the instructions issued under the PPF Scheme 1968. Our attention has been drawn to Ex.R-2, the e-Circular dated 25.02.2011 placed on record by the OP bank. It lays down that in terms of instructions given by the Ministry of Finance, vide letter no. 2/8/2005-NS-II dated 20.05.2005 communicated to the banks, vide circular RBI/2004-05 dated 25.05.2005, PPF(HUF) accounts opened after 13th May, 2005 would be void ab initio. The PPF accounts of the complainants in above referred complaints were not opened after 13th May 2005 as they were much prior thereto. This point is not disputed before us by any of the party. Ex.R-3 is the circular dated 17.06.2011 on the record regarding payment of interest in respect of PPF (HUF) accounts. Rates on those PPF (HUF) accounts, which had attained the maturity after 13.05.2005, but closed by the subscribers before 07.12.2010, subject to the conditions that the accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts without further subscriptions. Ex.R-4 is the First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 17 document of Reserve Bank of India. In CC no.157 of 2012, Ex.R-5 is the letter communicated to the General Manager Government Accounts Department State Bank of India and Associate Banks by Deputy General Manager. It lays down that the amendments to PPF scheme 1968, they come into force with effect from May 13, 2005. It was directed to issue suitable instructions to all the designated branches/offices authorized to operate the PPF scheme, 1968. The amendments may also be displayed on the notice board by the above branches and brought to the notice of PPF account holders. Similarly, Ex.R-6 is the document of Reserve Bank of India pertaining to above amendments regarding issuing the instructions to all the designated branches of the banks indicating that the above amendments carried out under the PPF scheme shall not be applicable to the existing accounts opened in accordance with the rules in operation prior to amendments dated May 13, 2005. Ex.R-7 is the document of State Bank of India moved by Ashok Kumar for withdrawal of amount of Rs.8 lakhs on 03.05.2011. Ex.R-7 is the documents produced by the OP bank on the record in CC no.157 of 2012, indicating that Ashok Kumar applied for withdrawal of amount of Rs.8 lakhs on 03.05.2011 on behalf of complainant. Similarly, Ex.R-8 is another document dated 27.07.2012 regarding withdrawal of amount of Rs.13,71,329.35 paise by Ashok Kumar for the complainant.
First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 18
15. From perusal of above referred evidence on the record, the matter is evident from the instructions contained in Ex.R-5, which is the document of the OP bank. The amendments were directed to be displayed on the notice board by the above branches or brought to the notice of PPF account holders. The complainants have brought evidence on the record that these amendments were not brought to their notice by the OP bank. The case of the complainants is that when they went for the withdrawal of the money in May 2011 only partial withdrawal amount was allowed thereto by the OP bank. The amendments were to be displayed on the notice board by the concerned branches or brought to the notice of PPF account holders. We have examined the affidavit of Sh. V.K. Gupta, Chief Manager of the OP bank. The counsel for the OP bank could not point out any evidence contained in it that these instructions were either brought to the notice of PPF account holders or displayed on the notice board. The District Forum mulcted the OP bank terming them as deficient in rendering service and accordingly gave directions to the OP bank to credit the interest on the amounts from 01.04.2011 to 23.01.2012 in the accounts of the complainants under the PPF accounts, besides payment of compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/ in above said consumer complaints. The counsel for the complainants, now respondents in above referred appeals cited the decision of our own State Commission in first appeal no.529 of 2013, instituted on First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 19 07.05.2013, decided on 30.01.2015 titled as "State Bank of India Vs. Pawan Kumar HUF through its Karta Pawan Kumar", wherein our State Commission has already taken the view that complainants are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum and reliance was placed by our own State Commission on law laid down by the National Commission in Revision Petition no. 2180 of 2004 titled as "Sr. Post Master Vs. Arvind Industries" in this regard. We have, thus, come to this conclusion that the amendments were neither brought to the notice of PPF account holders by the OP bank nor they were displayed on the notice board, as per the instructions, as referred to above. The OP bank again declined to pay interest to the complainants, which has been held to be payable @ 6% per annum in "Senior Post Master Vs. Arvind Industries" (Supra) and has been followed by our own State Commission in the above said judgment. Consequently, we modify the order of the District Forum by holding that OP bank in above referred appeals are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum over the balance amount of PPF account of the complainants from 01.04.2011 to 23.01.2012. The order of the District Forum regarding the amount of compensation and litigation expenses, as awarded to the complainants, is not disturbed in the above referred appeals. With the above modification in the orders of the District Forum in the above referred complaints regarding the amount of interest to be credited @6% per annum in the accounts of the First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 20 complainants/respondents from 01.04.2011 to 23.01.2012, there is no other merit in all the above referred appeals of the appellants and the same stand dismissed with pro tanto modification in the orders of the District Forum on the point of rate of interest, now payable @ 6% per annum from 01.04.2011 to 23.01.2014 to the complainants/ respondents.
16. The appellant of first appeal no.1358 of 2012 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. The remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OP bank to the complainant within 30 days from date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
17. The appellant of first appeal no.1359 of 2012 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. The remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OP bank to the complainant within 30 days from date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
First Appeal No.1358 of 2013 21
18. The appellant of first appeal no.1360 of 2012 had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. The remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant/OP bank to the complainant within 30 days from date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
19. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 30.06.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER July 01, 2015.
(MM)