Back
2011(1) CPR 282
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member and Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan, Member
The Manager Canara Bank, Kanhangad Branch & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Gopalakrishna Shenoy —Respondent
Appeal No. 195/2008
Decided on 31.5.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
1. For the Appellants:Sri P. Balakrishnan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rate of interest in a fixed deposit can be reduced only with written consent of depositor concerned.
Headnote:(1) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 14(1)(d), 15 and 17—Banking—Reduction in rate of interest—Alleged deficiency in service—Appellants directed by District Forum to pay Rs. 55,843/- with 9% interest to complainant alongwith cost of
Rs. 2,000/—Appellants taking plea that rate of interest was reduced from 13% to 12% by virtue of guideline issued by Reserve Bank of India and matter was informed to complainant—Nothing on record to show that rate of interest was reduced within one year of deposit and that reduction of rate of interest was intimated to complainant depositor—Reduction of rate of interest was informed complainant only when he approached opposite party to get maturity amount after date of maturity—Appellants opposite parties enjoyed fixed deposit amount for a period of 10 years and only after date of maturity of fixed deposit, depositor was informed about reduction of rate of interest from 13% to 12%—Deduction of Rs. 55,843 effected by appellant opposite parties can be treated as a unilateral action without consent of respondent-complainant—Impugned order confirmed—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6 to 11)
(ii) Banking—Rate of interest—If rate of interest is quoted in a fixed deposit receipt by Branch of Bank, reduction of interest rate can be made only with written consent of depositor concerned. (Para 9)
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial member—The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC26/2008 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragode. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Canara Bank, Kanhangadu Branch in reducing the rate of interest from 13% to12% and thereby claimed a sum of Rs.55,843 as the loss suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service on their part. They contended that the rate of interest for fixed deposits over 3 years were reduced to 12% from 14.7.1997 as per RBI guidelines and that the Kamadhenu Fixed Deposit Receipt issued to the complainant was due to a mistake and the said mistake was corrected within one year of deposit after duly intimating the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Before the Forum below Ex. A1 fixed deposit receipt was marked on the side of the complainant and B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite parties. After hearing both sides, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30th July 2008 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.55,843 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment with cost of Rs.2,000. Hence the present appeal.
3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued for the position that the rate of interest was reduced from 13% to 12% by virtue of the guideline issued by Reserve Bank of India and the said matter was informed the complainant. He relied on B2 circular dated 11.7.1997 issued by the General Manager, Canara Bank Development Section, Bangalore and submitted that the A1 fixed deposit receipt was issued to the complainant by mistakenly showing the rate of interest as 13% instead of 12% and that the said mistake was corrected in the light of the RBI guideline. He relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission 2001 (3) CPR 166(NC)1 and 2002 (3) CPR 29 (NC)2 and submitted that the reduction of the rate of interest based on RBI guideline can be justified. Thus, the appellants, prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below in CC26/08. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He further submitted that the B2 circular was not sufficient to alter the terms of agreement entered into between the complainant/Depositor and the opposite party/bank. He also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Veeranna and Ors.3 Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
4. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in reducing the rate of interest from 13% to 12%?
2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in allowing the claim of the respondent/complainant for Rs.55,843 by way of the loss suffered by the complainant with interest and costs?
3. Is there any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the CDRF, Kasaragode in CC.26/2008?
5. Points 1 to 3:
There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant effected the term deposit (fixed deposit) of Rs.1,30,000 with the 1st opposite party Canara Bank, Kanhangadu Branch under the Kamadhenu fixed deposit. The aforesaid Kamadhenu fixed deposit is covered by A1 fixed deposit receipt. The aforesaid fixed deposit was for 10 years with effect from 24.7.1997. The date of maturity was 24.7.2007. A1 fixed deposit receipt was issued on 30.11.99 for a period of 10 years with effect from 24.7.1997. The maturity value of that deposit was calculated at Rs. 4,67,246. Thus, as per A1 fixed deposit receipt the 1st opposite party Canara Bank was liable to pay a sum of Rs 4,67,246 on the maturity date of
