PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
Rs.96,18,428,28 towards the interest for the period w.e.f. 01.04.1996 to 03.09.1997 against the deposits made in the Saving Bank Account no. 7352 with interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount besides a sum of Rs.1.50 lakh as compensation and cost of the proceedings. 2. In nutshell, the case of the complainant-Board is that on 07.04.1995 complainant opened a saving bank account no. 7352 in the Patliputra Branch, Patna of opposite party-bank with the initial deposit of Rs.16,53,76,625/- and the said account remained operative for long and the interest accrued on the deposit was credited in the account of the complainant from time to time. A sum of Rs.17,47,605/- towards interest was credited in the pass-book of the complainant on 17.09.1995. Similarly, a sum of Rs.16,62,663/- towards interest accrued was also credited in the account. However, for the subsequent period, the interest amount was not credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant withdrew the deposited amount from the above numbered saving bank account and transferred the same in its current account on 03.09.1997. After some days i.e. on 19.09.1997, the complainant realized that the amount withdrawn from the saving bank account and deposited in the current account did not consist of the interest for the subsequent period and, therefore, a representation was made to the bank. The bank informed the complainant that no interest was payable in the saving bank account as the account had been opened with Budgeting Allocation Fund which did not qualify for payment of interest as per the RBI guidelines. The matter rested there until the auditors audited the account of the complainant and submitted a report on 27.07.99 making inquiries about non receipt of the interest for the subsequent period. It appears that it was at this stage that the complainant woke up from the slumber and issued various communications directly as well as through RBI seeking interest for the remainder period during which the saving bank account remained operational, however, with no consequence. Hence the complaint. 3. On being noticed, the opposite party-bank filed its written version raising number of preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of complaint. The main objection taken about the maintainability of the complaint is contained in para 10 of the preliminary objections which reads as under: “The audit objection which has formed basis of the present claim is not sustainable in the eye of law. The present claim appears to have been filed only to comply the alleged audit objection which is not tenable in law. That the complainant requested for conversion of the A/c. into a current A/C. only after becoming convinced as back as on 3.9.97 that it cannot maintain a Saving A/C. Since it depends on budgetary allocation for its functions and the Saving A/C. was opened by mistake in clear violation of the R.B.I. directions as such now it cannot legally claim interest for the period the amount remained with the Saving A/C without authority of law rather the same is contrary to law. That in any case the alleged cause of action arose for the first Six month interest, on 30th September 1996, for the second six month interest on 31st March 1997 and for the remaining period, on 3.9.97 and as such the entire claim is hopelessly barred by Limitation under Section 24 A of the Act as also the Limitation Act, 1963. There being no subsisting cause of action legally enforceable the present complaint is not maintainable for the said cause of action.” 4. On merits, the factual position about the opening of the saving bank account, crediting of certain amounts towards interest uptil particular period and, thereafter not crediting, the interest for the subsequent period is not disputed. However, it is sought to be explained that interest for the subsequent period could not be credited in the SB A/c of the complainant as the opposite party-bank became aware of the legal position flowing from the RBI guidelines which was to the effect that no person like the complainant could open a saving bank account particularly any person or institution having budgetary allocation fund does not qualify for payment of interest as per RBI guidelines. The payment of interest was accordingly stopped and entire amount lying in the saving bank was then transferred to the current account on the request of the complainant. 5. Parties have mostly relied upon the correspondence exchanged between the parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has strongly argued that present complaint could not have been entertained by this Commission, it being highly belated and having been filed much after the prescribed period of limitation. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant submits that complaint is within time and maintainable. There is no denial of the legal position, even otherwise, it is so established on record that under the RBI guidelines, the banks were prohibited against opening of saving bank account in the name of certain bodies, organizations. The relevant portion of the said bank guideline reads as under: Prohibition against opening of savings bank accounts in the names of certain bodies / organizations. “No bank shall open a savings deposit account in the name of Government departments/bodies depending upon budgetary allocations for performance of their functions/Municipal Corporations of Municipal Committees/Panchayat Samitis/State Housing Boards/Water and Sewerage/Drainage Boards/State Text Book Publishing Corporations/Societies/Metropolitan Development Authority/State District Level Housing Co-op Societies etc. or any trading or business concern, whether such concern is a proprietary or a partnership firm of a company or an association”. 7. As per the complainant’s own showing, it (Board) is the implementing agency of the total literacy programme and non-formal education in the State of Bihar and was in receipt of State grant and had budgeting allocation for carrying out the objects of the said Board. This will show that complainant was not entitled to open the saving bank account with whatever laudable objects it may have in mind. At the same time it was also the bounden duty of the opposite party-bank to have ensured that no such body or organization opened saving bank. For that reason, the opposite party can also be said to be casual in its approach but that will not be very material once the opposite party having been made aware of the correct legal position, had stopped crediting the interest amount in the account of the complainant. 8. Now, coming to the question whether the complaint can be said to have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation or not, we must note that complainant is a Board, getting financial grant to carry out its objects and for that purpose they must having adequate accounting support. Since the opposite party had stopped crediting the amount of interest in the saving bank account of the complainant ever since April 1996 and continued to do so uptil September 1997. It could not have gone unnoticed by the complainant or its functionaries, when the amount of interest was in several lakhs. For that period, they must be getting the passbook updated periodically. This was so required under the Financial Regulations of the Government under which the Board was functioning. No objection was raised by the complainant any time between April 1996 to September 1997 about the non crediting of the interest in their account. Not only that, the complainant without any rancour or reservation had withdrawn the amount from the saving bank and opened current account and deposited the withdrawn amount in the current account. It appears that it was only at that stage a meek attempt was made by the complainant because they must be aware of the legal position and that is why they closed the saving bank and opted to open a current account and got the entire amount transferred to current account. The opposite party-bank promptly replied to the complainant in no uncertain terms as is evident from their letter dated 19.09.1997 which we would like to reproduce here : “The Director Mass Education, Bihar Patna Sir, Your departmental SB A/C 7352 This has reference to your letter No. 2A/L-2-08/95/Khand-1/ME 1479 of 1315 Sept: We have to advise in this connection that the relative current account has been opened by us on Sept.1997 with the balance in your above SB account. The said SB a/c as advised has since been closed. As regards the interest, since referred SB account has been opened with budgetary allocation fund it does not quality for payment of interest not qualify for payment of interest as per RBI guidelines. So, we have not credited interest the said SB account. We hope our action will be appreciated by you. With kind regards (Yours faithfully) Sd/- SENIOR MANAGER” 9. It appears that complainant felt satisfied with reasoning given by the bank for not crediting the amount of interest in their account from April 1996 onwards. Auditors audited the account of the complainant in July 1999 and submitted the report and made certain observations in regard to the non receipt of the interest for the said period and it was at this stage that complainant had to take up the matter with the opposite party directly as well as through the RBI on which it appears that opposite party had agreed to consider the matter at their highest level. 10. The question for consideration is as to on what date the cause of action for filing the present complaint or for that reason a suit can be said to have arisen in favour of the complainant. In our view going by the chronology of events noted above, the cause of action can be said to have arisen first time around April 1996 which can be said to have continued uptil September 1997 when the complainant closed the saving bank account and opened the current bank account and transferred the amount from saving bank account to current account. By the letter dated 19.09.1997, the opposite party in no uncertain terms had informed the complainant about the legal position and the reason for not crediting the interest in the saving bank account. That action was not challenged by the complainant. In our view, the cause of action can be said to have lastly arisen in September 1997 and computing the period of two years, the complaint could be filed uptil September 1999. The subsequent correspondence relied upon by the complainant with the opposite party-bank directly or through RBI in our view is of no consequence because firstly the opposite party cannot be said to have made any acknowledgment of their liability to pay the amount of interest. In their capacity as nationalized bank, they were responding as they were duty bound to the complainant’s representation particularly when they were received through RBI as a matter of courtesy rather than as a legal obligation to do so. In any way, the cause of action which has lastly arisen in September 1997 cannot be deemed to have continued uptil 2001 on the strength of certain representations made by the complainant from time to time. We have already noticed that representations so made by the complainant after September 1997 were nothing but an attempt to meet the audit objections rather than to recover the amount of interest in view of the legal position. 11. Nothing has been filed on record to show that what prevented the complainant from filing a complaint promptly when the opposite party stopped crediting the amount of interest in their saving bank account or latest uptil the year September 1999 if they had real grievance in that behalf. Representation or correspondence exchanged between the parties after the cause of action had lastly arisen, unless an acknowledgment of liability do not extend the period of limitation. 12. Having considered the matter, we uphold the objection of the opposite party-bank that complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. Complaint is not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay and, therefore, we must dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. | 
