A RAMKRISHAN vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

K. S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

[1] This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.5.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 720 of 2008 The Branch Manager, PNB Vs. A. Ramakrishnan by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was set aside.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner made 5 FDRs in the erstwhile Nedunkadi Bank Ltd. as shown in the complaint with interest @ 12.5% in first 3 FDRs & 11.5% in next 2 FDRs, but after maturity, OP/respondent paid less maturity amount of Rs.1,47,132/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complainant and submitted that as per RBI orders and guidelines, OP took over Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and one year was fixed as "Moratorium Period". It was further submitted that as per notification dated 31.1.2003 issued by RBI regarding amalgamation, OP paid interest as per scheme and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

[3] Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,47,132/- with 12% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petitioner has been filed.

[4] Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

[5] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District forum rightly allowed interest as shown in the FDRs, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by leaned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

[6] Perusal of record reveals that by notification dated 31.1.2003, issued by Government of India, Nedungadi Bank Ltd. was amalgamated with PNB and as per Clause 6 of the notification, interest of payment has been made by OP. No doubt, rate of interest has been reduced by amalgamation scheme, but as interest has been paid as per scheme, learned State Commission rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint.

[7] This Bench in Oriental Bank of Commerce Through Auth. Rep. Vs. Shri Dev Raj Majahan & Anr., 2013 4 CPR 197 observed as under: " 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment delivered by this Commission in R.P. No. 2952 of 2006 Bank of Baroda, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Parul Agarwal and others decided on 1.9.2010. In that case, Banaras State Bank Ltd. merged with Bank of Baroda and FDR issued by Banaras State Bank Ltd. depicting maturity value of Rs.1,34,490/- was not paid by the Bank of Baroda and on maturity, Bank of Baroda paid Rs.93,841/-. This Commission held that Bank of Baroda acted in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Government of India under the Statue after due notification which was in public interest and specifically in the interest of its depositors to ensure minimum loss of money to them and there was no deficiency on the part of Bank of Baroda and order passed by District Forum and State Commission allowing complaint was set aside. In the aforesaid case, petitioner also did not give any notice about merger. On the other hand, in the case in hand, respondent himself admitted in complaint that merger was effected between OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 and in such circumstances, even if individual notice has not been received by the respondent regarding reduction of rate of interest on FDRs, petitioner has not committed any deficiency in reducing maturity value in accordance with notification issued by Ministry of Finance dated 13.8.2004 and scheme of amalgamation of Global Trust Bank of Ltd. with the petitioner."

[8] Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 3070 of 2010 PNB Vs. Bindhu Prakash in which it was observed that Bank was bound to pay interest as agreed by erstwhile Bank but as per our earlier judgment, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

[9] Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.