RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.780 of 2006

Om Prakash s/o Satyanarayan, R/o M 12/1,

Tulsi Manas Mandir Colony, Durgakund,

Varanasi.                                                          ...Appellant.

Versus

Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gurdham Branch,

Khojawa, Varanasi.                                    ….Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Shri Om Prakash, the appellant himself.

Shri H.P. Srivastava for the respondent.

Date  6.11.2017  

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2006, passed by the District Forum, Varanasi in complaint case no.211 of 2006. 

The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the appellant/complainant had deposited different sums on different dates as F.D. with the respondent/OP which was payable with 15% p.a. interest and as per the bank rules the renewal of the FDRs was also to be with 15% p.a. interest. When on 4.6.2001, the appellant/complainant went to the OP for renewal of the FDRs then the same were renewed with 9% interest and when the complainant objected then the OP asked him to give one of the FDRs for renewal with 9.50% interest and assured that the OP shall take permission from its Head Office for renewal of the FDRs with 15% p.a. interest and thereafter will renew the FDRs with 15% p.a. interest. When the complainant

(2)

enquired about the renewal of the FDRs on 6.6.2001 then the OP talked about 9.50% interest only but on the objection of the complainant the interest @ 11% p.a. was allowed and renewal was accordingly done, though the FDRs should have been renewed with 15% interest only. When the OP did not renew the FDRs with 15% interest on the representation made by the complainant then he filed a complaint case in the Forum wherein the respondent/OP filed the WS submitting therein that this complaint was not maintainable in the Forum. The complainant had not turned up for encashment or renewal  of the FDRs on the maturity dates hence, as per banking rules the maturity amount of TDRs were transferred to overdue fixed deposit account wherein no interest was payable. Besides, the OP never admitted for renewing the TDRs with 15% p.a. interest. The FDR no.002700 of Rs.25,516.00 with interest have become Rs.25,875.00 on 4.6.2001 and interest on the existing TDRs was paid @ 11% p.a. interest as a good gesture from the back date. The bank had applied rate of interest as RBI guidelines being 11% p.a. which had been already given to the existing TDRs. The complainant had filed the case to extract money from the OP hence, it is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the ld. Forum, passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint on 18.2.2006.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

In this case, it is not disputed that certain amounts were deposited by the appellant/complainant with the OP,

(3)

details of which are given in the complaint and that interest on those FDRs at the time of deposit was application @ 15%. The disputed point according to the appellant/complainant is that the at the time of renewal of the FDRs, the interest of 15% was not given and therefore, the respondent/OP committed deficiency in service whereas according to the respondent/OP, the interest applicable at the rate, at the time of renewal of the FDRs was @ 11% and therefore, they did not commit any deficiency in service.

So now, it is to be seen as to whether the respondent/ OP committed deficiency in not making the payment of interest @15% at the time of renewal of the FDRs of the complainant. If so, its effect.  

It is the case of the complainant that he had deposited certain sums as FDRs on 2.5.1996, 17.5.1996, 7.6.1996 and 17.4.1996 and interest on those amount was payable @ 15% p.a. but when the complainant went to the OP for renewal of these FDRs on 4.6.2001 then interest @ 15% was not made payable and only interest @ 11% p.a. was made applicable and therefore, it is argued from the side of the appellant that the matured amount should have been renewed with 15% interest which was applicable at the time of the deposit of the amounts as FDRs. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent that the respondent/OP is guided by certain directions of RBI and the interest which is payable at the time of renewal of the FDRs is made payable and since in the instant case, the interest @ 11% was payable at the time of renewal of the FDRs of the appellant/OP therefore, the

(4)

FDRs were renewed with interest @11% only. The respondent/OP had filed a copy of the overdue deposit modified rules dated 23.12.1993 wherein the condition is mentioned that the interest allowed shall be the appropriate rate operative on the date of maturity of such overdue deposits which shall be payable only on the amount of deposits, so for renewal on the basis of the aforesaid rules, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent/OP that the interest at the time of renewal of the matured FDRs was made payable at the rate which was applicable at the time of renewal of the FDRs. It is further argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent/OP that 15% interest at the time of deposit of the amount in FDR was not applicable at the time of renewal of the FDRs as only "rate applicable" at the time of renewal of the matured amount, was payable. It is argued by the appellant/complainant that once 15% interest was payable on the FDRs then at the time of maturity and thereafter, renewal of the matured amount the interest of only 15% only should have been made payable but the appellant has not able to show as to whether at the time of renewal of the matured amount, the interest @ 15% was payable or not. There is substance in the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the respondent that at the time of renewal of the FDRs whatever rate of interest was applicable that was payable on renewing the FDRs. It is also argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that in the instant case, the complainant had infact not given the FDRs for renewal at the time of maturity of the FDRs and hence, the matured amount was transferred to the account of overdue fixed

(5)

deposit account where no interest was payable as per RBI guidelines and it is only when the TDRs  are presented to the bank for renewal then as per the existing circulars and guidelines interest was payable. From a chart showing the interest rate applicable in the OP Bank on 6.6.2001, the rate applicable is shown as 10% p.a. but under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the respondent/OP has, as a good gesture made 11% interest applicable form the date of the maturity of the amount.  

Under the circumstances, it is clear that the respondent/OP has made interest as applicable under the rules and circulars at the time of renewal of the FDRs and it can not be said that the OP had committed deficiency in service in not allowing the interest @ 15% as the appellant/complainant has not been able to prove that 15% interest was applicable as per the rules on the date of renewal of his FDRs. Therefore, ld. Forum has passed a reasoned order in dismissing the complaint finding no substance in it. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.   

ORDER

          The appeal is dismissed.

No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (Vijai Varma)                          (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.3