Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
PREM NARAIN, J.
State Bank of India – Petitioner
Versus
Allabux – Respondent
Revision Petition Nos. 4854, 4855 of 2012, Appeal Nos. 1605, 2240 of 2011
Decided On : 20-09-2018
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Law - Banking and Finance
Act Referred
Headnote
Consumer Dispute - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12 - 29.3.2011 - The court discussed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12 and the interpretation of the maturity amount, interest, and compensation. The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions related to the entitlement of interest on the maturity amount and the bank's failure to follow proper procedures in premature payment of the fixed deposit.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant deposited Rs. 2,02,000 in a fixed deposit with the bank, which was prematurely encashed by the bank and the amount was adjusted in the complainant's over draft account. The District Forum allowed the complaint, ordering the bank to pay the maturity amount, interest, and compensation. The State Commission modified the order, directing the bank to pay the maturity amount with prevailing interest from the date of maturity. The bank filed revision petitions against the State Commission's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank's premature payment of the fixed deposit without following proper procedures and the entitlement of interest on the maturity amount were key issues. The court also considered the complainant's absence during the maturity period and the lack of evidence for the over draft account maintained by the complainant.
Issues: The key issues included the premature encashment of the fixed deposit, entitlement of interest on the maturity amount, and the authenticity of the over draft account maintained by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank's failure to follow proper procedures in premature payment and the lack of evidence for the over draft account made the bank liable to pay the maturity amount with prevailing interest. The court also determined the entitlement of interest from the date of maturity based on the filing date of the complaint.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petitions, modifying the State Commission's order to direct the bank to pay the maturity amount with prevailing interest from the date of the District Forum's order.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Kapur.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Mr. Saket G.
ORDER :
1. These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner, State Bank of India against the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore (for short, ‘State Commission’) in FA Nos. 1605/2012 and 2240/2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/ complainant deposited Rs. 2,02,000 with the petitioner/OP on 23.6.1995 for 36 months in fixed deposit which was to mature on 22.6.1998 with maturity value of Rs. 2,92,294. It is the case of the complainant that he went to Soudi Arabia and came back in 2009 only. Then he pursued with the bank and requested for payment of his fixed deposit. When he presented his fixed deposit receipt to the bank, the bank made an endorsement on the FDR that the FDR was prematurely encashed on 13.2.1998 and the maturity amount of Rs. 2,72,532 was adjusted in the over draft account of the complainant. Complainant then gave a legal notice on 29.9.2009 but received no reply. Then the consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum on 24.8.2010.
3. OP resisted the complaint by filing the written statement. It was mentioned that the complainant appeared on 13.2.1998 in the bank and requested for pre-mature payment of the FDR due to urgent financial need. Accordingly, the maturity value of Rs. 2,72,532 was adjusted in the over draft account maintained by the complainant with the bank. At that time, it was stated by the complainant that the original FDR was lost and he had presented only a photocopy of the FDR. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 2,72,532 the over draft account was fully satisfied and the remaining amount of Rs. 43,138 was refunded in cash to the complainant and the over draft account was also closed. Accordingly, it was requested that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The District Forum vide its order dated 29.3.2011 after considering the submissions of both parties allowed the complaint as under:
“For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP is allowed, partly with cost.
OP is ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,92,294 to the complainant towards the maturity amount of the F.D. together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 29.9.2009 till realization.
OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.15,000 compensation for mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and also cost of the proceeding.
The OP is granted six weeks time to comply with the said order.”
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, OP bank preferred Appeal No. 1605/2011 before the State Commission and similarly the complainant also preferred an Appeal No. 2240 of 2011 before the State Commission. The OP preferred appeal on the ground that the maturity amount has already been paid and bank cannot be directed to pay maturity amount again. The complainant preferred appeal on the ground that the District Forum had allowed interest only from 29.9.2009, whereas the complainant is entitled to get interest from the date of maturity of the fixed deposit. The State Commission however dismissed the FA No. 1605/2011 filed by the OP bank and allowed the FA No. 2240/2011 filed by the complainant as under:
“Appeal No. 1605/2011 filed by the Opposite Party/Bank is dismissed.
Appeal No. 2240/2011 filed by the complainant is allowed in modification of the order passed by the DF directing the Opposite Party/Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 2,92,294 to the complainant towards maturity of the FD together with the prevailing interest payable on SB account that is from 22.6.1998 till its realization.
The remaining order passed by the DF, Gulbarga is kept undisturbed.
The amount deposited by the appellant/OP in Appeal No. 1605/2011 shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the complainant after due notice to him.”
6. Aggrieved with the order of the State Commission, the OP bank has filed these two revision petitions against the order of the State Commission dated 4.8.2012.
7. Heard the learned Counse
