JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The case of the complainant , in brief, is that the complainant had subscribed family welfare scheme of Opposite Party Allahabad Bank of India at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for 12 months on 17/04/1998 vide Account Folio No. 368/1. The O.P. also issued certificate vide Receipt No.- 584104/FW/620 promosing to pay an amount of Rs.24,602/- to the complainant on 09/03/2019 as maturity value. That the complainant paid monthly instalment of Rs.100/- for 12 months according to the terms of the scheme. Subsequently after the scheme became matured the complainant submitted the original certificate to the O.P. No.-3 , the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank of India, Dudhpatil Branch, Silchar. But after awaiting long time on 06/06/2020 the complainant received only an amount of Rs.8,990/- against the said scheme through his S/B account lying with the O.P. instead of Rs.24,602/-. Thereafter the complainant visited O.P. no.3 who handed over a letter dated 17/02/2020 and told that the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.8,990/- only against his said scheme. According to the complainant, he is entitled to get the amount of Rs.24,602/- against his family welfare scheme and by not paying the assured amount the O.P. has caused disservice to him and has also caused mental pain and agony as well as financial loss for which the O.P. is liable to compensate the complainant. Under the circumstan ces the complainant has prayed for passing an award of Rs.15,612/- being the remaining maturity value and for further payment of interest and cost of the case etc.
The O.Ps. contested the case and filed written statement stating , interalia, that there is no cause or cogent reason for filing this complaint, that the claim is barred by limitation etc. It is stated that the Special Term Deposit Receipt ( here-in-after called “the STDR” for brevity’s sake ) of the complainant under Family welfare Deposit Scheme is concerned it was introduced by the O.P. Bank to raise fund from the consumers and the commitment to refund the money was subject to one of the conditions that the rate of interest payable on the deposit was subject to the directives that might be issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. So the payment of Rs.24,602/- as maturity value on 09/03/2019 was quite conditional and not absolute. It is further stated that the rate of interest payable under the STDR was repeatedly reduced by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the total maturity value on the Receipt stood to Rs.8990/- as on 09/03/2019 and the said amount was paid to the complainant directly to his S/B account. It has been claimed by the O.P. bank that had the initial rate of interest been not changed by the RBI, the O.P. bank could have paid the original maturity value. So, according to the O.P. bank, they have not caused any disservice to the complainant. Under the circumstances the O.Ps. have prayed for dismissing the complaint.
In support of his claim the complainant has submitted his evidence on affidavit and exhibited some documents. On the other hand, the evidence of O.P. no.-3 the Branch Manager has been submitted by way of affidavit from the O.P. side . Both parties have submitted respective written argument. In addition oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of the respective parties was also heard. Perused the entire evidence on record.
The evidence of PW-1 , the complainant , is that he had subscribed family welfare scheme of the O.P. at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for 12 months on 17/04/1998 vide Account and Folio No. 368/1. On issuance of certificate vide Receipt No. 584104/FW/620 the O.P. promised to pay the amount of Rs.24,602/- as maturity value on 09/03/2019 against the said scheme. Further contention of PW-1 is that he diligently paid the monthly instalment of Rs.100/- for 12 months according to the terms of the scheme. Subsequently, according to PW-1, as the scheme became matured he submitted the original certificate to the O.P. No.-3 and after long passage of time on 06/06/2020 an amount of Rs.8,990/- was paid through his Savings Account instead of his entitled maturity amount of Rs. 24,602/-. It has been claimed by PW-1 that as the O.P. issued family welfare scheme to him and received amount of Rs.1200/- so it is their obligation to make payment of the entitled amount on the date of maturity. Further claim of PW-1 is that non-payment of entitled amount by the O.P. has caused disservice to him alongwith mental pain, agony, sufference and financial loss. To substantiate his claim the complainant has submitted in the case Ext.-1 copy of certificate issued on 17/04/1998 and Ext.-2 the statement of accounts dated 17/02/2020 issued by the Branch Manager of O.P. bank. On the other hand, the evidence of the O.P. No.-3 i.e., D.W.-1 is that as far as the special term deposit receipt ( in short STDR ) of the complainant under Family Welfare Deposit Scheme is concerned it was introduced by the O.P. bank to raise fund from the consumers and the commitment to refund the money was subject to one of the conditions that the rate of interest payable on the deposit was subject to the directives that might be issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time which was accepted by the complainant. D.W.-1 has exhibited the photocopy of the said STDR as Ext.-A containing the condition overleaf. So, according to D.W.-1, the payment of Rs.24,602/- as maturity value on 09/03/2019 was quite conditional and not absolute. It has been further stated by D.W.-1 that the rate of interest payable under the STDR was repeatedly reduced by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the total maturity value on the receipt stood to Rs.8990/- as on 09/03/2019 and the said amount was paid to the complainant by crediting his Savings Bank account. DW-1 has also exhibited the photocopy of the statement of account as Ext.-B . According to DW-1 , had the initial rate of interest been not changed by the RBI, the O.P. Bank could have paid the original maturity value. Further contention of DW-1 is that the STDR matured on 09/03/2019 but the complainant presented it for encashment on 06/06/2020 and accordingly payment was made to him on 06/06/2020 with simple interest @ 3.5% per annum for the overdue period as per the deposit policy of the Bank of 2018-19 communicated to the O.P. under Instruction Circular No. 16395/Dev/2018-19/82 dated 22/03/2019 by the Planning and Development Department of the Bank. It is further stated that the rate of interest applied in the STDR from time to time on the basis of the occassional revised rate of interest on Domestic Term Deposits fixed by the authority of the Bank under Instruction Circular No. 9918/Dev/2007-08/102 dated 05/02/2008 and Instruction Circular No. 15511/IRM/2017-18/36 dated 26/02/2018 acting upon the RAPO rate and Reverse RAPO rate of the RBI. The DW has submitted the on-line copy of the Instruction Circular No.16395/Dev/2018-19/82 dated 22/03/2019 as Ext.-C , the on-line copy of the Instruction Circular No.9918/Dev/2007-08/102 dated 05/02/2008 as Ext.-D and the on-line copy of the Instruction Circular No.15511/IRM/2017-18/36 dated 26/02/2018 as Ext.- E. The DW has also exhibited the copy of the RBI Circular on RAPO Rate and Reverse RAPO Rate applicable during the relevant period of payment of interest in the STDR as Ext.-F. It has been claimed by the DW that the O.P. has not caused any disservice to the complainant. Hence the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost to the O.P.
The claim of the complainant as reveals from his evidence is that he had subscribed family welfare scheme of the O.P. at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for 12 months on 17/04/1998 vide Account and Folio No. 368/1 and on issuance of Ext.-1 certificate vide Receipt No. 584104/FW/620 the O.P. promised to pay an amount of Rs.24,602/- as maturity value on 09/03/2019 against the said scheme. As such ,according to PW-1, on maturity the O.P. Bank is liable to pay to him the assured amount of Rs.24,602/-. Though the DW in his respective evidence has admitted the fact that Ext.-1 Receipt was issued by the O.P. Bank and though the said receipt shows that on maturity on 09/03/2019 the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.24,602/- but it is stated that the same was quite conditional and not absolute. According to the DW, the commitment to refund the money was subject to one of the conditions that the rate of interest payable on the deposit was subject to the directives that might be issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time which was accepted by the complainant. D.W.-1 has exhibited the photocopy of the said STDR as Ext.-A containing the condition overleaf. From Ext-A the photocopy of the STDR receipt and Ext.-1 STDR receipt are same and and it is not disputed. On perusal of the said receipt it clearly reveals that the assurance or promise to pay the mature amount was subject to condition and on the overleaf of the said receipt it has been clearly mentioned that one of the condition is that the rate of interest payable on this deposit is subject to the directives that may be issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. From the exhibited papers of the O.P. side it also further reveals that the rate of interest has become much less that the rate of interest that prevailed during the period when the Ext.-1 was issued to the complainant. Under the circumstances, we find force in the claim of O.P. Bank that payment of the maturity amount as mentioned in Ext.-1 ( Ext.-A) Receipt was conditional.
PW-1 has submitted Ext.-2 Statement of Accounts in respect of the aforesaid STDR and has claimed that the O.P. Bank handed over the same to him. As reveals from the record the O.P. has not denied issuance of Ext-2 . Perusal of Ext.-2 reveals that the complainant has been paid interest @ 7.50% on the deposit wef.17/04/2008 to 18/04/2018 and it further reveals from the record that the said rate of interest was applied as per Ext.-D Circular of the O.P. bank regarding revision on interest rates on Domestic Term Deposit. At the rate of 7.50% interest has been calculated on the deposit for the period stretching for about ten years. As such as per
Ext. –D chart of interest, according to us, the complainant is entitled to get interest on the deposit at the rate of 8.75% which is the highest rate.
From the above it also has come out that some sort of disservice has been caused to the complainant by the O.P-Bank which has compelled him to come to this Commission for redress and as such it is quite understandable that the complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the O.P No.3-Bank is liable to pay interest at the rate of 8.75% on the deposit of the concerned STDR w.e.f. 17/04/2008 to 16/04/2018 alongwith the amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only for mental pain, agony etc. and an amount of RS.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards cost of litigation to the complainant and it is ordered accordingly. As the amount will increase due to calculation of interest @ 8.75% so naturally total interest paid for the period 17/04/2018 to 16/04/2019 will increase and it is ordered for payment by O.P No.3 accordingly. It is also ordered that the O.P No.3 Bank shall further pay interest w.e.f. 17/04/2019 till today as per prevalent simple rate of interest of the Bank on the excess amount which the complainant will be entitled to get. The entire amount shall be payable within a period of 60 (Sixty) days from today otherwise interest@ 9% will accrue on the amount from today till payment.
With the above direction and relief the case stands partly allowed on contest.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission on this 25th day of February, 2022.Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
