Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4492
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Not Mentioned, Not Mentioned
Bank – Appellant
Versus
Complainant – Respondent
Revision Petition | S.58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Financial institutions have a statutory duty to return matured deposit amounts without requiring withdrawal requests from account holders, solidifying negligence in their service can lead to liability for accrued interest.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(1)(b) - Revision Petition - Dispute over interest on Provident Fund Account - Account opened by Complainant matured on 31.3.2015 - Bank's failure to pay maturity amount and accrued interest until 31.3.2019 resulted in deficiency in service - Bank liable to pay interest for the delayed period. (Paras 8, 9, 19)
(B) Service Deficiency - Duty of financial institutions - Bank must adhere to prescribed regulations and cannot evade liability over employee errors - Obligation to return funds upon maturity without requiring withdrawal application from the Complainant. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant, an HUF, opened a PF Account maturing on 31.3.2015 but the Bank erroneously continued to credit interest until 31.3.2019 and later denied interest on that duration after the Complainant's inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The Bank was found to have acted against statutory obligations by not closing the matured account and is liable for the erroneously accrued interest.
Issues: Whether the Bank had the duty to pay interest post-maturity without a withdrawal application and whether the Bank's actions constituted service deficiency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory duty to return maturity amounts does not depend on a withdrawal application and Bank's internal rules do not supersede government regulations. The appeal was dismissed, acknowledging the complaint's merits and the Bank's liability to pay interest.
Result: The appeal is dismissed. The previous order regarding payment of interest at 6% from the maturity date was upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition under consumer protection act filed by bank. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of deficiency in service by the bank for not paying accrued interest. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's finding against bank's non-compliance with statutory duties. (Para 3) |
| 4. bank's obligation to pay interest on matured account without withdrawal application. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 5. court affirms appeal dismissal recognizing complainant's rights. (Para 9) |
1. The present Revision Petition, under S.58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the Act) has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred as the Bank) against the order dated 3.3.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) in Appeal No. 800 of 2019. By the impugned order, the State Commission has modified the order dated 5.11.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No. 507 of 2019 of the Complainant which was allowed.
2. It is alleged by learned Counsel for the Bank that the impugned order suffers with illegality and has been passed in violation of the rules governing the conduct of the Banks. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Bank that as per the R.9 Sub-R.3 of Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, it was the duty of the Complainant, the PF Account Holder, to apply for withdrawal of the money on maturity of the PF Account which he has failed to do and by mistake, the Bank continued to credit the interest in his PF Account till 31st March, 2019. It is submitted that the date of maturity of PF Account was 31st March 2015. It is submitted that although, the Bank has committed a mistake, but the Complainant has also committed a mistake by not filing any application for withdrawal of his maturity amount from the PF Account. It is submitted that the Complainant is an HUF and therefore, under the rules, under no circumstances, the PF Account could be continued beyond the period of maturity since the Account had been opened by the Complainant before 2010 when the said rules had been modified.
3. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Bank and have perused the record.
4. The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant, who is an HUF, opened the Provident Fund Account in the year 2000 which was matured on 31.3.2015. It is also an admitted fact that the Bank had continued crediting in the PF Account the interest beyond the period of 31.3.2015 and when the Complainant after five years approached the Bank for refund of his money lying in the PF Account, the Bank refused to give him the interest accrued on the said amount for the period from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2019. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum.
5. The notice of the Complaint was issued but the Bank did not attend the proceedings before the District Forum. The Bank was proceeded ex parte. In the Complaint, the Complainant had alleged that after the maturity of the PF Account on 31.3.2015, he had applied for withdrawal of the PF Account, however, the Bank had told him that he could extend the PF Account for further another five years and despite his applying for withdrawal of the amount, the money was not released to him and the Bank continued to keep it and credited the interest upon that money from year to year. The Complainant led the evidences. On the basis of the evidences led by the Complainant, the District Forum issued the following directions:
5. Learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant opened an Public Provident Fund Account bearing No. 10978591575 in the year 2000 for 15 years and its maturity was in the year 2015. The complainant has been making deposits from year to year in the above said PPF account and the” along with interest upto 31.3.2015 was Rs. 13,76,639.77 paise. It has further been contended that after completion of 15 years of the said acc
