D.O.F. 18.11.2009 D.O.O. 11.01.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. C.C.No.310/2009 A.M. Raveendran, S/o. Manan, ‘Chaithanya’, Venus Corner, : Complainant Thalassery. (Rep. by Adv. G.P. Gopalakrishnan) HDFC Bank Ltd., Thalassery Branch, A.V.K. Nair Road, Thalassery. Rep. by its Manager. : Opposite party (Rep. by Adv. P.S. Murali) O R D E R Sri. K. Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of ` INR 95,279 along with interest at the rate of 12% and ` 2,05,000 as compensation and cost of this proceedings. The case of the complainant in brief are as follows : The complainant is a preferred customer of opposite party holding a fixed deposit account for ` INR 25,00,000. The amount was deposited on 16.04.2007 with an interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum. The maturity date was 19.04.2008 with a maturity value ` INR 27,75,957. The complainant informed the Branch Manager on 20.03.2008 that he required ` INR 22,00,000 not later than 22.03.2008. In response to this request he was offered a temporary loan for a sum required with an interest of 1% over the FD rate. It was not acceptable to complainant. Till 24.03.2008 there was no decision on the part of the Bank and on enquiry he was told that the matter has been taken up before the higher authorities. Thereafter due to certain urgency the complainant was not able to wait for the funds. Beyond the date 24.03.2008 and on further discussion the Branch Manager agree to apply up to date interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum as officially booked for the said deposit even while its withdrawal 25 days ahead of its maturity date. It was wrote to be the fair deal for the complainant as 25 days interest charges for the temporary loan on ` INR 22,00,000 at the rate of 11.5% per annum and an interest loss of the deposit amount of ` INR 25,00,000 for the same period does not make material difference when the same amount to ` INR 17,281 and ` INR 17,930 respectively. Consequently the complainant written authority specifying therein to credit the proceeds along with up to date interest to his account was delivered to the Bank on 25.03.2008. Though the transaction was processed on the same day, the interest amount disposed was only ` INR 1,62,747 instead of ` INR 2,58,026 for 343 days at the rate of 10.5% per annum complying with the assurance given by the Bank. The bank turned down the commitment made by their Branch Manager without informing the complainant. If it informed prior to the settlement he would not have withdrawn the FD per contra would have opted the temporary loan with normal Interest as offered by the Bank. Complainant sought assistance of Bankers Grievances Redressal Cell in Mumbai. But they kept mum. Hence he sent lawyer notice to opposite party and Redressal Cell. The Grievances Redressal Cell did not even sent a reply. So that the matter was taken up before the Banking Ombudsman seeking relief but they rejected the same. Due to the deficient service of opposite party complainant suffered a loss of an amount of ` 95,275. The complainant is entitled to get back this amount with interest and compensation. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed the version. The brief contents of the version of opposite party is as follows : Complainant has deposited an amount of ` 25,00,000 as fixed deposit. The rate of interest was 10.5% on maturity. The contractual rate of interest is not payable in case of premature withdrawal of the deposit. This was clearly explained to the complainant. The Bank has conspicuously published the said information on the Bankers Web Site as well. The complainant being a preferred customer the bank had offered him an overdraft (OD) facility with an interest of 1% over the FD rate in order to minimize the loan on account of premature closure of the FD. But complainant wanted loan with interest at the rate of 0.5% over the fixed deposit interest rate. It is not possible even as per the circular of Reserve Bank of India. Opposite party cannot Act against the direction of RBI in granting any relief sought by complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The opposite party has committed no error or deficiency in service and hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 to A11. No documents marked on the side of opposite party. Issues 1 to 3 : The complainant is a preferred customer of opposite party. He has deposited an amount of ` 25,00,000 on 16.04.2007 with opposite party Bank with an interest rate of 10.5% per annum. Its maturity date was 19.04.2008. Complainant was in need of money. Some days before the maturity date of FD and the same was informed to the Manager. Considering the requirement of complainant Manager offered a temporary loan for the sum required with an interest of 1% over the FD rate. Since it was not acceptable complainant informed that he is ready to accept the offer if the rate is 0.5%. Further allegation of the complainant is that he made enquiry with respect his demand but he received the reply that no decision was taken whereas his request has been forwarded to higher authorities. He adds that since he was in need of money before 25.03.2008 he talked to the Manager and thereby agreed to apply upto date interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum that has initially booked for the said deposit even while its withdrawal 25 days ahead of its maturity date. Complainant deposed in his affidavit evidence that “ F\n¡v ]W-¯nsâ AX-ym-h-i-y-ap-f-f-Xn-\m-epT 25.03.2008 Xo¿Xn Ign-bmsX Xs¶ ]WT e`n-t¡--Xn-\m-epT Rm³ amt\-P-dp-ambn kT-km-cn-¨-Xn At±-lT Fsâ ta ]dª Ønc-\nt£]¯n\p 10.50% \nc¡n Xs¶ ‘upto date interest’ Xcm-sa¶v k½-Xn-¡p-I-bpT sNbvXp. 1% hÀ²n-¸n¨ ]eni \nc-¡n (11.5%) ]en-i¡v 22 e£T cq] Xm¡m-enI hmbv] FSp-¡p-t¼mÄ Dm-Ip¶ ]eni _m[-y-X-bpT (17,281.42 cq]) 25 Znh-kT ap¼mbn 25 e£T cq]-bpsS Ønc-\n-t£-]T amt\-PÀ k½-Xn¨ (10.5%) ]eni \nc-¡n ]n³h-en-¡p-t¼mÄ Dm-Ip¶ ]en-i-\-jvS-hpT (17,930.32 cq]) X½n hfsc sNdnb hy-X-ym-kT am{X-am-b-Xn-\m Bb-Xv F\n¡v kzoIm-c-y-am-bn-cp-¶p.” According to complainant Branch Manager seems to agree to give interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum for the FD amount even on withdrawal of the same 25 days prior to the maturity date. In other words it seems that complainant was under the impression that practically there was no difference in amount since he is getting interest at the rate of 10.5% for the Fixed Deposit for the whole period less the interest of 25 days at the same rate, so also he is liable to pay only 11.5% interest for temporary loan for the amount of ` 22,00,000. He worked out the difference and found the loss is only ignorable. He has given evidence by proof affidavit as follows: “taÂ[m-c-W-bpsS ASn-Øm-\-¯n Rm³ 25.03.2008-þ\v ta Ønc-\n-t£-]T ‘upto date interest’ kln-XT Fsâ A¡u-n \nt£]n¡p-hm-\m-h-i-ys¸«v Hcp ‘Authority letter’ _m¦n kaÀ¸n¨Xv _m¦n k-zo-I-cn-¡p-I-bpT sNbvXn-cp-¶p. 25.03.2008-þ\v Xs¶ _m¦v CS-]mSv \S-¯n-bn-cp-¶p.” Ext.A2 written authority sent by complainant reveals thus “We wish to withdraw the explained Fixed Deposit prior to the maturity date and authorize you to credit the precepts along with up to date interest to Account No. 04651530002473 held with in the name of A.M. Raveendran”. On the other hand opposite party contended that with a view to help the complainant in order to minimize the loss on account of premature closure they offered an overdraft facility with an interest of 1% over the FD rate. It is also contended that it was clearly explained to complainant that the contractual rate of interest cannot be paid in the case of premature withdrawal of the deposit as it is a matter of policy of Bank. The version stated that application form for the deposit evidences that payment of contractual rate of interest for premature withdrawal was never agreed or in such commitment was provided by the Bank. Ext.A2 reveals complainant has given letter for withdrawal of the concerned FD amount. Ext.A2 contains no whisper about any offer or commitment on the part of opposite party or understanding with the opposite party with respect to the rate of interest. Moreover Ext.A2 has not also been contended any suggestion of complainant with respect to the interest. The entirety of the contents of Ext.A2 never given any indication in respect of the interest of any nature. Ext.A2 undoubtedly prove that the alleged fixed deposit has been closed prematurely as per the written instruction of the complainant. The opposite party adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit that the interest rate applicable for premature closure of deposits will be lower than the original rate at which the deposit has been booked. The said fact is well within the knowledge of Sri. Raveendran, as the same has been explained to him. Further, the said fact has been clearly reflected as part of the terms of the fixed deposit. The FD was closed prematurely as per his written instruction, issued after fully understanding the implications. Ext.A1 shows interest payment frequencies as that on maturity. He states further that the complainant, being a preferred customer the bank wanted really help him and therefore in order to minimize the loss on account of the premature closure of the fixed deposit, bank offered him an overdraft facility, which can be repaid with an interest of 1% over the FD rate. But the complainant wanted loan with interest at the rate of 0.05% over the FD interest rate. In cross examination DW1 deposed that “Premature closingþsâ Imcy-¯n Rm\pT ]cm-Xn-¡m-c-\p-ambn [mcm-fT kT-`m-j-WT \S-¯n-bn-cp-¶p. B kT-`m-j-W-¯nsâ cXv\-¨p-cp-¡T ]cm-Xn-¡m-c\p amIvkn-aT \jvST Ipd-¡-W-sa-¶m-bn-cp-¶p. AXp-sImv ]cm-Xn-¡m-c\v overdraft facility sImSp-¯n-cp-¶p. ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ International Bank- 35 hÀj-¡m-e-ambn henb postþ tPmen sNbvX BfmWv. tFähpT Npcp-§nb \jvST hcp¶ coXn-bn XncsªSp¡m-\p-ff Ignhv Ds-¶mWv Rm³ a\-Ên-em-¡n-b-Xv.” Complainant stated in Ext.A3 letter that “Expenses to my request I was offered a temporary loan with an interest at the rate of 1% over the FD rate which I was unwilling to accept as I think from good relationships as many other local banks who normally offer to him such a loan at .5% on smaller terms. Ext.A3 letter reveals 2 facts. First of all there was an offer on the part of opposite party for availing a temporary loan with an interest rate of 1% over the FD rate. Secondly complainant therein will be to accept the offer whatever may be the reason. Complainant contended that he has expressed choice to withdraw deposit 25 days ahead of its maturity and Mr.Vipin, Manager of the Bank agreed to apply up to date interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum as officially booked. But complainant could not produce any evidence to show that such offer has been made. Complainant is a well deputed person who had acquainted with banking transactions for a long period of his life. He has not expected to be depended upon the mere words of an official. He is expected to be capable of understanding the terms and conditions with rules and regulations. Complainant never attempted to explain what are the provisions that support the contentions of complainant. What is the law that existing for the time being entitling, complainant to get the same rate of interest even when the fixed deposit has been prematurely withdrawn has not been explained by the complainant. The analysis of entire evidence case to show that the complainant is merely depending upon the alleged promise of an official for proof his case. In other words the complainant, a Senior Officer of International Bank happened to suffer a heavy loss on the question of withdrawal of a Fixed Deposit upon the reason of a misleading of a Bank Employee for which he has no evidence to be aduced. It cannot be ignored that complainant has not made any attempt to bring legal aspect before the Forum so as to strengthen the contentions of the complainant. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the same rate of interest of Fixed Deposit in a case of preclosure legally? If so what is the provisions? The complainant is least bothered to answer these questions. When the complainant was asked a question in cross examination whether the contentions in Ext.A1 is applicable to him, his answer is that he is not seen in the conditions. It is quite doubtful whether the person like complainant can give such an answer. Complainant himself admitted in cross examination that there were no written documents that assured rate of interest of 10.5% for premature release of the Fixed Deposit. Answering to another question complainant deposed in cross examination that “FD maturityþ¡p apt¼ withdrawal sNbvXm rate of interest Ipd-bpT F¶ Imc-yT AdnbmT. But when another question was put to him his answer is that “preclosure \S-¯p¶ ka-b¯v \jvS-ap-m-Ip-sa¶v a\-Ên-em-¡n-bn-cp-s¶-¦n preclosure sN¿p-am-bn-cp-¶n-Ã.” It is difficult to understand what really he meant while giving such contrary answers. He intended to pose that preclosure would not have been done if he was aware of the fact that foreclosure would make heavy loss. He is the same person who has given evidence that he was aware there will be loss at the time when prematurely close the Fixed Deposit. Complainant has not taken into account the rules and regulations and that is the real reason for missing to take wise decision in the alleged case of foreclosure. In the light of the above discussion we are of considered opinion that complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and thus no deficiency can be attributed on the shoulders of opposite party in order to make him liable for the loss suffered by the complainant. Hence issues No.1 to 3 are answered against complainant. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Deposit confirmation/Renewal advice. A2. Authorisation letter issued by the complainant dated 25.03.08. A3. Letter dated 11.04.2008 sent to Grievance Redressal Cell, Mumbai. A4. Reply letter dated 19.04.2008. A5. Reply from the opposite party. A6. Letter dated 18.06.2008. A7. Reply letter dated 28.06.2008. A8. Legal notice dated 21.10.2008. A9. Letter dated 28.11.2008. A10. Complaint filed before the Banking Ombudsman dated 22.02.2009. A11. Letter from the Banking ombudsman dated 28.05.2009. Exhibits for the opposite parties B1. Nil. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for opposite party DW1. Vipin H. /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
