Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 271
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER, MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, MEMBER
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR SOBTI HUF – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 433 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharya
For the Respondents:
The bank's failure to return maturity funds constituted deficiency in service as per statutory obligations, irrespective of complainant's actions.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(1)(b) - Revision Petition filed against the order of the State Commission modifying the order of the District Forum - The bank failed in its duty to return the maturity amount of the Provident Fund Account to the complainant after its maturity on 31.03.2015 - It continued to credit interest post maturity, which constituted deficiency in service. (Paras 1-8)
(B) The bank's arguments regarding the complainant's mistake in not applying for withdrawal were dismissed, emphasizing that statutory duties cannot be circumvented by citing employee errors. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant, a Hindu Undivided Family, owned a Provident Fund Account which matured on 31.03.2015. Despite this, the bank continued crediting interest for four more years before refusing to allow withdrawal of funds when approached.
Findings of Court:
Bank's continued crediting of interest post-maturity represented a clear violation of regulations mandating the return of funds upon maturity. No sufficient evidence was found supporting the bank's claims of the complainant's inaction.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the bank had a duty to return the maturity amount and whether the complainant's purported mistakes were relevant in the bank's liability for not complying with statutory obligations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the bank had a statutory obligation to return the funds at maturity, and its failure to do so constituted a deficiency in service. The complainant's failure to apply for withdrawal was irrelevant to this obligation.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bank's liability for failure to pay accrued interest and satisfy consumers post-maturity. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. court emphasized the bank's statutory duty to return maturity funds and the irrelevance of complainant’s actions. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. complainant's pf account matured in 2015, yet the bank credited interest until 2019, demonstrating service deficiency. (Para 4) |
| 4. bank argued the complainant failed to withdraw funds, claiming accountability; however, statutory obligations were paramount. (Para 7) |
| 5. court affirms responsibility on bank to properly manage provident fund accounts. (Para 8 , 9) |
1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 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 03.03.2021 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 05.11.2019 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 Rule 9 sub-rule 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 31.03.2015. It is also an admitted fact that the Bank had continued crediting in the PF Account the interest beyond the period of 31.03.2015 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 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2019. 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 31.03.2015, 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. Ld. 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 f
