J.VAIDYANATHAN vs MADRAS CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where the complaint filed by him was dismissed, and an appeal filed by him before the State Commission was also dismissed as not being maintainable.

FACTS necessary to appreciate the case are that the petitioner became a beneficiary of certain Fixed Deposits made with the respondent Bank. The matter went to the Court and it was finally settled through a compromise filed before the Madras High Court, on 20.2.1992 by virtue of which the said Fixed Deposits amounts come to the share of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that in all there were 12 Fixed Deposits which were made between 18.5.1973-7.1.1974 to 18.5.1974-4.1.1975. In this present case, we are concerned with FD Receipt No. B-17536 issued by the respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that inspite of his repeated requests and reminders the FD was not renewed resulting in monetary loss to him. Before the District Forum and the State Commission, petitioner''s case was that rate of interest granted to him should have been at compound rate for two reasons. One-that it is within the discretion of the Bank to do so; and, secondly, it has been given to certain other clients but not given to him. Both the lower Forums did not agree with this argument. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground, that non-exercise of discretionary power by the respondent in favour of the complainant does not amount to a consumer dispute. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, hence this revision Petition. We have seen the record and protracted correspondence and heard the arguments. The only point of dispute is the rate of interest, payable to the complainant by the respondent on the FDR in question in view of its history. There is no dispute that there was an FD for Rs. 5,000/- bearing No. B-17536 for the period 18.5.1973 for a period of one year. There are eleven other FDs but it was admitted by the parties that whatever view is taken in this case shall mutis mutandis become applicable in other FDs as well.

This FD was in the name of Smt. Avayambal and Sri A. Ravi Shankar payable to either or survivor. As per record, it appears that all these FDs were with the petitioner which he had received from the deceased Smt. Avayambal for sale custody. It appears that after the sad demise of Smt. Avayambal, the petitioner did not pass on the FDRs to the survivor.

BASIC facts of the case are not disputed-only point of dispute relates to the rate of interest applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Protracted correspondence with NABARD the apex body for the co-operative Bank is on record. Suffice for us to say that four dates/events will help us to determine the issue; (i) letter dated 2.4.1998 from NABARD to respondent; (ii) FDRs endoresment dated 30.4.1998 showing full settlement; (iii) letter from NABARD dated 30.7.1998, and (iv) last letter from NABARD dated 29.8.2001. On 2.4.1998, NABARD writes to the 2nd respondent to advise the 1st respondent dealing branch in following terms : "From your letter dated 21.10.1992, it is clear that your bank was prepared to allow interest on the deposits from the date of maturity, if they were renewed by Shri Vaidyanathan. Shri Vaidyanathan has given renewal instruction. However, from the correspondense, we observe that some of the terms for the renewal indicated by him were not acceptable to you and therefore, the matter was delayed. In this connection, we may mention that had there been quick decision in the matter, Shri Vaidyanathan would have been eligible for renewing the deposits beyond the 3 years period initially indicating by him at the rates prevailing on the date of maturity (i.e. 3 years after 13.5.1992). In view of the non-renewal of deposits, he has been in our opinion deprived of the benefit. We, therefore, request you to reconsider the matter relating to payment of interest beyond the 3 years period from 13.5.1992. In case you foresee delay in deciding upon the above aspect, you may consider his request for payment of the amounts due to him without prejudice to his further claims, as any delay owing to calculations mistake on your part may increase your interest liability for the delayed period. This settlement should, however, be after ensuring that the interest calculations at the agreed rates i.e. 8 and 10 on quarterly compounding basis are correctly worked out after rectification of the errors pointed out by Shri Vaidyanathan."

In compliance with the above guidelines, payment is made and accepted in full settlement on 30.4.1998 by the petitioner as per endorsements made on FDRs. As per letter from NABARD dated 30.7.1998 addressed to the respondent Bank, they state : "In this connection, we advise that the RBI, Chennai had examined the issue and felt that the settlement made by your bank is reasonable and your Bank has the discretion in the matters involving commercial decisions in settlement of deposit accounts. Under the circumstances, the issue in question has been treated as closed. A copy of this letter is also endorsed to Shri J. Vaidyanathan for his information matter."

The matter was treated as closed as even the RBI, on inspection, found the settlement reasonable. On the issue being raked up again, NABARD as late as 30.8.2001 asks only for a copy of FD receipt and nothing more is heard. No material is on record to show any figure of interest to the contrary to which the petitioner is entitled. NABARD''s directions are final on the subject and they have been fully complied with. RBI was satisfied with the settlement; we need not travel beyond that. We find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent; and are in full agreement with the District Forum who cites this complaint as a typical example of misuse of the Consumer Forum. We see no merit in the petition which we dismiss with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be payable to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed with costs.