AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER /Opposite No.2 being aggrieved by impugned order dated 15.2.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad(for short, ''State Commission'') has filed the present revision petition.
BRIEF facts are, that Respondent/Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 23,468/ - and Rs.40,090/ - with Sanjeevani Co -operative Bank Ltd. - Opposite Party No.1 -(before District Forum) which was later on merged with Petitioner -Bank. On 08.04.2003, respondent demanded return of Rs.23,468/ - from OP No.1 with interest and on 14.4.2003, also it demanded the sum of Rs.40,090/ -. The OP No.1. had deposited the said amounts in Account No.22/295 and 22/293 in cumulative deposits. After maturity of the deposits on 5.5.2009, respondent went to the Manager of the Petitioner -Bank and demanded amount of Rs.47,706/ - and Rs.81,495/ -. Petitioner -Bank refused to pay the said amounts and told respondent that only basic sum would be returned to him. Accordingly, basic amount had been deposited in the account no. 221/114 of the respondent on 24.1.2009.
THEREAFTER , respondent filed consumer complaint against the Petitioner and OP No. 1, alleging deficiency in service by illegally denying the interest and prayed that an amount of Rs. 63,537/ - be given to him along with an interest @ 18% and he may be given Rs.7,000/ - towards compensation and Rs.3,000/ - towards cost of complaint. Op No.1 remained absent despite of service of notice and failed to submit written statement. Hence, was proceeded exparte.
PETITIONER contested the complaint and filed its written statement stating therein, that receipts of the account numbers 22/295(No.1070 and 22/293 had been issued without following the provisions and norms of the Reserve Bank of India. The basic amount was transferred to the account no. 221/114 of the respondent after receiving his due permission to accept the same on 24.12.2008. It is further stated, that amount of Rs.23,468/ - was due for maturity on 8.4.2003 and the same was renewed on 18.7.2003. The term of renewed account expired on 8.4.2009. The renewal is valid only if made within 14 days after the expiry of the term, but that was made after 101 days. Also the amount of Rs.40,090/ - become mature on 13.4.2003 and same was renewed on 18.7.2003, which was also invalid. The said renewals are contrary to the Circular of Reserve Bank of India, as it was mandatory for the respondent to renew the deposits after 14 days of its expiry. The respondent had received both the deposits. The renewal has not been registered in the bank ledgers, so petitioner is not able to pay the interest. It is a false complaint and may be rejected by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/ -.
DISTRICT Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Parbhani (for short ''District Forum'') vide order dated 4.2.2011, allowed the complaint partially and passed following directions; "2. The non -applicant no. 2 shall pay Rs. 24,238/ - from the receipt no.1070 and Rs.41,405/ - from the receipt no.1069 along with the general interest within 30 days from the date of decision till the entire payment. 3. The non -applicant no.2 shall pay Rs.1,000/ - towards compensation and Rs.1,000/ - towards the cost to the applicant."
BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order dismissed the same.
HENCE , this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.
IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that renewal of fixed deposit of the respondent by the officers of the Sanjeevani Co -Op. Bank Ltd. after 15 days from the date of maturity, is contrary to the rules prescribed by Reserve Bank of India in its Circular and as such, Petitioner''s Bank is not liable to pay the interest amount on the fixed deposit. In support, learned counsel has relied upon Circular dated 19.04.2001 issued by Reserve Bank of India.
STATE Commission in its impugned order has observed; "4. We find that the main grounds on the basis of which the appellant bank has denied the payment of maturity amount of the reinvestment deposits are that - i) The Sanjeevani Bank had not followed the RBI guidelines while renewing the said deposits. It was stated that, as per the RBI guidelines the renewal of the existing term deposits was to be made within a period of 14 days from the date of maturity. However, in the present case reinvestment of the deposits was made on 18.07.2003, with back effect from 08.04.2003 and 13.04.2003 i.e. the renewal was done after the lapse of about three months. ii) Secondly, the respondent had accepted the original amount of deposits i.e. Rs.63,558/ - on 24.12.2009 and hence the respondents were not entitled for the payment of the balance amount as the said claim is hit by the principal of estoppels.
We are however of the view that both these grounds for non -payment of the amount of terms deposits are not proper and hence not acceptable. As regards the first ground the respondent can not be held responsible for getting his fixed deposits renewed. In fact, it is the Sanjeevani bank who has renewed those certificates and therefore if there is any mistake on the part of said bank the respondent cannot be blamed for the same. It is also to be noted that the Sanjeevani Bank has been merged into the Vaidyanath Bank w.e.f. 20.10.2008 and as per the terms and condition of the scheme of amalgamation as is annexed with the said order it is very much clear that all the liabilities, duties and obligation of the "transferor Bank" i. e. Sanjeevani Bank shall be and shall become the liabilities, duties and obligations of the "transferee bank," i.e. appellant bank. It has also to be considered that, the amount of both the FDR''s were lying with the Sanjeevani Bank only, therefore it was quite logical to give the back effect for the reinvestment of those deposits. Secondly, although the respondent has accepted the face value of both the deposits, the appellant bank has not proved with any cogent evidence that the respondent has accepted the same as full and final payment. Therefore, respondent is very well entitled to get the entire amount of his term deposits along with interest on the delay caused after the date of maturity. As mentioned above as per the maturity amount of both the FDR''s the respondent is entitled to receive Rs.47,706/ - from receipt No.1070 and Rs.81,495/ - from the receipt No. 1069 i.e. total Rs.1,29,201/ - (47,706/ -+ 81,490/ -). Out of this amount of Rs.1,29,201/ - he has already received Rs. 63,558/ - hence, he is now entitled to receive Rs.65,643/ - (Rs.129,201/ - - 63,558/ -) However, since this amount was not paid by the appellant bank the respondent is also entitled for the interest. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and observations we find that, the District Forum has rightly considered all these aspects and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order. There is no reason to interfere the said order. In the circumstances, we have to dismiss the appeal".
THE relevant portion of Reserve Bank India''s Circular as relied upon by the petitioner, read as under; (b) At present, in terms of paragraph 13(1) of our Directive UBD No.DC 102/V -I -1 -86/87 dated 25 June 1987 as amended from time to time, banks are free to renew overdue domestic terms deposit at an interest rate applicable on the date of maturity. In order to facilitate better ALM, it has been decided that renewal of overdue term deposits at the interest prevailing on the date of maturity be allowed only for an overdue period of 14 days. In case, the overdue period exceeds 14 days and if the depositor places entire amount of overdue deposit or a portion thereof as a fresh term deposit, banks may prescribe their own interest rates for the overdue period on the amount so placed as a fresh deposit. Banks, however, have to inform the depositors in advance of their policy for renewal of overdue deposits."
AS per this Circular, Banks have to inform the depositors in advance of their policy for renewal of overdue deposits. There is nothing on record to show as to whether Petitioner''s Bank or Sanjeevani Cooperative Society Ltd, ever complied with the aforesaid directions and informed the complainant about the aforesaid Circular.
IN the absence of non -compliance of the above stated guidelines, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner''s Bank.
IT is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. This Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission only where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 3 Scale 654 has observed; "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion,an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".
IN view of the concurrent findings of the facts given by both the fora below, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, present revision petition stand dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/ -(Rupees Ten Thousand only).
PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" of this Commission within one month from today.
IN case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
LIST on 13th March, 2015 for compliance.