STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Reva Arora

THESE two revision petitions have been filed by State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner '') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission '') in Appeal Nos.1187-88/2007 in favour Reva Arora and Kamala Chawal, Respondents herein who were the original complainants before the District Forum.

SINCE the Petitioner and the issues involved in both cases are the same, it is therefore, proposed to dispose of these revision petitions by a single order by taking the facts from R.P. No.3839/2007. In her complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant had contended that she had opened a Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account with the Petitioner/Bank in 1991 and since then she has been regularly depositing various amounts on different date in the said PPF account which were also regularly recorded in the pass-book issued to her by the Petitioner/Bank. On 20.09.2000, Petitioner/Bank intimated the Respondent that she had deposited Rs.1,49,000/- which was in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs.60,000/- in each financial year and the Bank was therefore, refunding the excess amount deposited by her had consequently debited the interest amounting to Rs.1,57,849/- for the aforesaid period from her PPF account. Shocked and aggrieved by receipt of this letter since Respondent was not aware regarding the limit on the amount to be deposited each year, she requested the Bank to refund the amount of interest as she had deposited her own money in the account and was, therefore, entitled to the interest on that amount which was lying with the Bank for the period from 1990 to 2000. Since the Petitioner/Bank refused to do so and had never cared to inform the Respondent that excess amounts were being deposited by her and in fact had been crediting the same with interest in her PPF account, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that since the Petitioner/Bank had utilized the money of the Respondent which was refunded only in the year 2000 and has also not given interest for the same, she was entitled to receive Rs.1,57,849/- along with interest @ 21% per annum from the financial year 1990 to 1995 and Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and harassment etc.

THE contentions pertaining to deficiency in service were denied by the Petitioner who stated that in the PPF Pass-book which was issued to the Respondent, it was clearly stated under the heading "Information to the Subscriber " that a subscriber can deposit only Rs.60,000/- annually and therefore, it was for the Respondent to have ensured that an amount exceeding this limit was not deposited. Since the Petitioner/Bank maintains a number of accounts, it was not possible for it to notice in each case that more than the stipulated amount has been deposited, particularly since these amount can be subscribed in multiples of Rs.5 between Rs.100 to Rs.60,000/- in a year. Further, since the PPF is a statutory scheme of the Central Government framed under the provisions of the PPF Act, 1968, the Petitioner/Bank acts only as an Accounts Officer under the Scheme and the money received are immediately forwarded to the Central Government. Since, this is Government moneys and is retained with the Government, Petitioner/Bank as a caretaker does not receive any interest on the money deposited in these accounts. There was thus no deficiency in service and the complaint is misconceived.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint by observing that in their opinion the Petitioner had failed to take timely action in informing the Respondent/Complainant and refunding the excess amount. Hence, Petitioner/Bank was deficient in providing services. But since there was also an element of ignorance on the part of the Respondent, justice would be done if relief in the form of simple interest to the Respondent is given for the excess amount which was lying with the Petitioner/Bank. District Forum, therefore, directed the Petitioner/Bank to pay Respondent, interest @ 6% per annum for the excess amounts which were lying in the PPF Account with the Petitioner/Bank. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner/Bank filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same by observing as follows: "Whenever a service provider accepts any amount from the consumer towards deposit under any scheme it has to pay interest to the depositor even if the depositor has not knowledge that the deposits made and accepted by the service provider under a particular scheme are more than the prescribed limit. Though ordinarily, consumer expects to receive the interest which is permissible under the scheme against which he had deposited the amount and the service provider has accepted the same but since there are rules that put embargo upon the service provider not to accept the amount more than the permissible limit the circumstance of acceptance of higher amount deposited by the consumer in the said scheme amounts to negligence of service provider, therefore, in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the service provider is liable to pay an amount of compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. In such circumstances the service provider is at least liable to pay interest at saving bank account or even little higher if not the interest permissible under the scheme. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order which is the justifiable order and therefore at our end does not need any intereference. In the result, appeal is dismissed. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. "

Hence, the present revision petition.

COUNSEL for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner reiterated that in the Pass-book of the Public Provident Fund (PPF) Scheme, the maximum permissible amount which can be deposited every year by a subscriber is clearly stated and at that time the deposit limit was Rs.60,000/- per annum. Further, Petitioner/Bank only acts as an Accounts Officer under the Scheme because the money deposited by subscribers is immediately forwarded to the Government of India. The Petitioner/Bank unlike other schemes this does not utilize this money and therefore, does not earn any interest/income from it. While it is a fact that the Petitioner/Bank had been crediting excess amounts deposited by the Respondent, it cannot be held guilty of negligence or deficiency since the responsibility to ensure that the correct amounts to be deposited lies with the subscriber who was depositing the money. Moreso, since these facts were clearly mentioned in the Pass-book which was available with the Respondent. Learned Fora erred, therefore, in holding the Petitioner/Bank responsible for deficiency in service. Since the Scheme did not permit deposit of an amount in excess of the stipulated amount the Petitioner promptly returned the money deposited over the years to Respondent and debited the interest since no interest was due on the excess amount. There was thus no deficiency in service.

COUNSEL for Respondent on the other hand stated that the Fora below had rightly observed that the Petitioner/Bank as a service provider had a responsibility to ensure that the deposit limit as stipulated in their own rules and regulations are complied with and that by not doing so and accepting more than the permissible amount were guilty of deficiency in service and therefore, the revision petition should be dismissed and relief as given to the Respondent by the Fora below be upheld. We have gone through the facts pertaining to the Respondent ''s having PPF account with the Petitioner/Bank are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent had deposited amounts which were in excess of the stipulated amount and that these excess amounts were refunded to the Respondent on 20.09.2000 by the Petitioner/Bank and the interest on this amount was debited from her existing PPF account. We have perused the PPF Scheme Pass-book which was available to all subscribers including the Respondent. This Scheme clearly states as follows: " ... ... ....You can subscribe any amount in multiples of Rs.100/- between Rs.500/- and Rs.70,000/- in a year, to your public provident fund account. It is not necessary that you should subscribe every month of the year, but not more than one subscription can be accepted in a month. You can vary the amount of subscription to suit your convenience. "

THE Respondent ''s pleading ignorance about the details of the Scheme in which the Respondent herself was a subscriber does not inspire much confidence because it is not denied that in the Pass-book issued to her, the details pertaining to the limit of the amount that can be deposited under the Scheme are clearly spelt out. From a perusal of the Scheme which is a statutory Scheme of the Central Government, it is clear that the Petitioner/Bank is only a collecting agency which passes on the moneys collected to the Government Treasury. It does not earn any income or interest from the amounts deposited in the PPF account unlike Savings Bank accounts, fixed deposits and other Schemes. While it is a fact that the Petitioner did take the amounts that were deposited by the Respondent in excess of the stipulated limit, it cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service since it was for the Respondent who was depositing her money to ensure that the deposit limit as stipulated as per the Scheme was adhered to and complied with. We therefore, see no reason to penalize the Petitioner/Bank since there was no deficiency in service on its part nor did it gain any monetary benefit or advantage because of the excess amount deposited by the Respondent. We therefore, set aside the orders of the Fora below and allow the revision petition with no order as to costs.