AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE Petitioner could not attend the case personally. As prayed by him, Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner. IA stands disposed of. We have heard her at length.
THE case of the complainant filed before the District Forum is as follows. The complainant, Ratan Singh Tanwar, had deposited two Fixed Deposit amounts with Dena Bank, Sikar. The first FDR was issued on 09.05.1996, in the sum of Rs.10,000/ -, with interest @ 13% p.a., the maturity date was 31.12.2001 and the maturity amount was Rs.20,211/ -. The second FDR was issued for Rs.5,000/ - at the interest rate @ 12% p.a., and he was to get Rs.9,868/ - on the date of maturity, i.e., 01.05.2003. It was contended that at the time of renewal of FDRs, the interest rate was changed.
ANOTHER grievance of the complainant is that at the time of pre -mature withdrawal of both the FDRs, 1% was deducted illegally. Consequently, the present complaint was filed before the District Forum, wherein the following claims were made: - . the complainant be granted amount from the Bank with previous rate of interest, secondly, a sum of Rs.10,000/ - be paid for mental and physical disturbance and Rs.10,000/ - as costs of the case. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.
WE have heard Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner should have been intimated by the Bank about the change of interest rate. Record reveals that FDRs were renewed on 14.10.2003 and 31.12.2001 with interest @ 6% p.a., and 8.75% p.a., respectively, for 96 months and 120 months, whose maturity dates were 01.05.2011 and 09.11.2011. Those Bank rates were fixed by the Head Office of the Bank.
IT is well settled that it is no part of the duty of the Bank to give prior notice to the FDR depositor about the change of rate of interest on FDR, at the time of the renewal of the FDR. Moreover, the rate of FDR is written/ marked, clearly and unequivocally on the FDR. The petitioner is entitled to the interest which is prevalent at the time of renewal of FDRs. He cannot claim the previous rate of interest which were prevalent before, some time. The Bank cannot charge interest more or less, than which is notified by the RBI. There is no rule that the Bank will pay the same rate of interest at the time of renewal of the FDR.
THE Petitioner has already got relief in respect of 1% penalty, as well as costs and litigation charges, sufficiently, awarded by the fora below. Consequently, we see no merit in this revision petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.