NIDHI GARG vs STATE BANK OF PATIALA

THROUGH a single petition filed on 16.8.1999, the petitioner wishes to challenge, an order passed on 2.6.1998 by the State Commission exercising its original jurisdiction as well as order passed by the State Commission at the stage of execution of the above order dated 13.7.1999. A formal prayer for condonation of delay was also made in the petition filed before us to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the State Commission on 2.6.1998.

THIS Commission vide its order dated 4.7.2000 decided to treat the petition as a revision petition against the order of the State Commission passed in execution on 13.7.1999. In the circumstances the order of State Commission passed on 2.6.1998 attained finality. Brief facts of the case are that one Mr. S.P. Gupta, an NRI had three FCNR Term Deposit, in all, amounting to 5,000 maturing between the period of 1.4.1981 - 10.5.1981. Unfortunately the said, Mr. Gupta expired on 8.6.1980 and his mother after obtaining the succession certificate, presented herself before the respondents for payment. The respondents made payment in Indian Rupees of 3,95,126/- on the basis of circulars and instructions on the subject relevant for the period which was (i) to award the contracted rate of interest on FCNR A/c upto the dates of maturity in foreign currency, (ii) on the date of maturity to be converted into Indian Rupees, (iii) award rate of interest varying @ 10% - 12% for different periods, thus arriving at the figure of Rs. 3,95,126/- which was paid by the respondents on 29.3.1995. The complainant not being satisfied with the calculation and alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent, filed a complaint before the State Commission who after hearing both the parties directed the respondents to recast the amount of interest payable "to the complainant in accordance with the instructions contained in the compendium which was applicable".

The respondents recalculated the amount payable on the basis of (i) awarding interest for the maturity period taken as this date of payment as per contracted rate, (ii)calculating the payable amount in foreign currency after adding interest @ 5% from the date of maturity to the date of claim, (iii) converting this amount in Indian Rupees at the prevailing foreign exchange conversion rate - thus arriving at a figure of Rs. 4,51,658/- and paid the balance amount with interest. Not still being satisfied the complainant filed an application under Section 27 of C.P. Act wherein upon hearing both the parties. State Commission declared that all what was required to be done as per their orders and as per law, has been given to the complainant, nothing more is required to be done as the orders of State Commission stand fully complied; hence this petition.

IT is argued by the petitioner that as per circulars/instructions on the subject, rate of interest to be awarded on foreign exchange for the period it was lying with the respondent has to be 10% p.a. as per circulars/instructions on the subject to which she drew our attention and which are on record. State Commission erred in its appreciations of the instructions on the subject. Order of the State Commission is vague, full of conjectures and surmises hence need to be set aside. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that payment has been made as per instructions/circulars on the subject. According to him the payment made earlier was based on correct calculations, as per these calculations they have already paid in excess. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments, what we see is that the whole controversy hovers around one point the methodology for calculations of payable amount in case the deposition of FCNR dies before the maturity period of the deposit and if there is anything wrong with the order passed by the State Commission. The compendium of instructions issued by the Department of Banking Operation and Development dated 29.4.1997 on the subject relevant for our purpose are : "6. Interest payable on the deposit of a deceased depositor In the case of a deposit standing in the name of a deceased depositor, interest shall be paid to the heir/s legal representative/s or nominee/s of the deceased depositor in the manner indicated below : (i) At the contracted rate on the maturity of the deposit. (ii) In the event of the heir/s, legal representative/s or nominee/s claiming the payment of deposit before the maturity date, the Bank may at its discretion, pay interest as provided in paragraph 4 above. (iii) If the amount of the deposit is claimed by the heir/s, legal representative/s or nominee/s after the date of maturity, the Bank shall pay interest at contracted rate till the date of maturity. After the date of maturity to the date of claim by the heir/s, legal representative/s or nominee/s, the Bank shall pay interest as permissible under the directive on interest rates on deposits operative on the date of maturity. (iv) If on the request from the heir/s, legal representative/s or nominee/s, Bank agrees to split the amount of term deposit and issue two or more receipts individually in the name of the heir/s, legal representative/s or nominee/s, it shall not be constructed as premature withdrawal of deposit, provided the period and aggregate amount of deposit do not undergo any change."

WE are concerned with the liability of respondents both in terms of principle and interest thereon. A simple reading of para 6(iii) leaves us in no doubt that working of the liability had to be done in two parts (i) pay interest at the contracted rate till the date of maturity, (ii) and then pay to heirs/LRs interest as permissible under the directive on interest rates as deposits operative on the date of maturity. This is precisely what was done by the respondent while arriving at the figure of Rs. 3,95,126/-. The deposited amount for obvious reasons could not be renewed and as per RBI instructions, this amount had to be converted into Indian Rupees. In our view methodology of making the second calculation while more generous, is not as per instructions on the subject. We are also unable to appreciate the argument and plea of the complainant i.e. to grant interest @ 10% on Deposit assuming the whole period i.e. from 1980-1995 as FCNR''s deposit. This is not as per instructions on the subject, hence we see no merit in this plea of the petition. We also see that as per instructions on the subject the complainant was entitled to Rs. 3,95,126/- as per the first methodology of calculations. They have been overpaid already. Since there is no plea of petition from the respondent, we leave the matter as it is. State Commission''s order in execution cannot be faulted. The complainant ought to appreciate that had the respondent came in revision, result could have been different. In the circumstances, the order of the State Commission does not call for any interference. This petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Revision Petition dismissed.