Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India vs B.V. Ramana Murthy on 24 October, 2007

The Senior Post Master, vs Sunil Kuamar Agrawal on 29 July, 2009

10.    Coming to aforesaid point ( c ),  the F.A.No. 837 of 2008 merits no consideration and is to be dismissed. The complainant/appellant of F.A.No. 883 of 2008, no doubt, has prayed in this appeal for a direction to the opp./respondent, to pay him the full amount of accrued interest on the excess amount of deposits till the date of refund besides the interest @ 7% per annum as is awarded by the District Forum vide orders dated 17.9.2008.It has been decided in a case in between State Bank of India vs B.V.Ramana Murthy, reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) 394 (NCC) that refusal to pay interest on deposits made in PPF account of a subscriber/customer on ground that the deposits made was in excess of the ceiling prescribed in scheme is deficiency in service. Therefore, it was held in the said decision that once the Bank accepted the deposits made in excess of ceiling prescribed, the Bank would be liable to pay interest on such deposits. This principle is applicable to the present case. In the present case, admittedly, the excess amount of deposit under the said two accounts are Rs. 3,65,000/-  though has been refunded to the complainant on 23.2.2007 yet no interest accrued thereon during said period of  7 years have been given to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get interest on said amount of excess deposit. But as the complainant was not very much careful while making deposits in the said P.P.F. accounts as a result of which there has been excess amount of deposit beyond the ceiling prescribed under paragraph 3 (1 ) of the P.P.F.Scheme, we are not inclined to award interest more than the rate of 7% per annum. Therefore, the complainant would only get interest @ 7% per annum from the dates of excess amount of deposit totally amounting to Rs. 3,65,000/- till the date of refund besides the award of interest made by the District Forum, Cutttack.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1