Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Kokje, President &
Mr. M.L. Tiwari, Member
DINESH KUMAR MISHRA—Appellant
versus
SHAKHA PRABANDHAK, CENTRAL BANK &
ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 405 of 1993—Decided on 25.6.1994
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Prakashchandra Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
Banking transactions are governed by the rules prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and there cannot be any oral promise in the case of banking transactions.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Banking Transactions - The court held that there was no deficiency in service of the bank as the banking transactions are governed by the rules prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and there cannot be any oral promise in the case of banking transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had taken a loan from a nationalized bank with a promise that the interest of the fixed deposit would be adjusted towards the loan, and a certain amount of interest would not be deposited in the saving account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no deficiency in service of the bank and that the District Forum had dealt with an issue that was not part of the dispute. The court dismissed the appeal in limine with no order as to cost.
Issues: The issues were whether there was any deficiency in service of the bank and whether the instructions given by the appellant were obeyed in breaches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that banking transactions are governed by the rules prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and that there cannot be any oral promise in the case of banking transactions.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.
Mr. M.L. Tiwari, Member:—Appellant Dinesh Kumar Mishra being aggrieved by the judgment of Gwalior District Forum passed in Case No. 1392/92 dated 7.5.93 by which the complaint was dismissed has preferred this appeal.
2. The brief point for determination in this appeal is:—
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service of the bank?
(2) Whether the instructions given by the appellant were obeyed in breaches?
3. Reasons with finding All facts in this appeal are undisputed, but for this that while the loan of Rs. 2000/- was given to the appellant a promise was given by the bank that the interest of the F.D. will be adjusted towards the loan, and the amount of Rs. 2377/- as interest shall not be deposited in the saving account.
4. We have perused the record of the lower Court and the order passed. The Central Bank of India is a nationalised bank and everything which transpires between the bank and the customer is always in the form of the contract or agreement. There cannot be any oral promise in the case of banking transacttions. So there was nothing before that Forum by the way of deficiency in service of the bank. How the banking institution will transact is governed by the rules prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant has not placed rules alleged to have been ignored by the bank.
5. The District Forum, Gwalior has without any reason has dealt with the Income-tax issue. That was not the dispute before the Forum, that on earlier occasion the bank has carelessly deducted Rs. 26/- as Income-tax. That was not even his complaint. This is not the case where no proper interest has been paid. The admitted position is interest is paid but at times the interest has been adjusted towards the loan advanced and at times it is deposited in the saving accounts. There is nothing to show that the respondent acted contrary to any agreement. Hence this appeal is dismissed in limine. No order as to cost.
Appeal dismissed in limine.
–
