CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 14 OF 2014 to 25 OF 2014
Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Both the parties in the aforesaid case being same, they are disposed of by this common order.
3. The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants have approached OP No.1 to open Bank account by investing Rs.2.00 crores each in 12 separate term deposits. The OPs being service provider agreed to the terms and conditions of interest. Complainants alleged that as per the agreement between the parties OP Nos. 1 an 2 illegally deducted 3% interest towards the penalty at the time of premature encashment and the deduction of money is against the agreed assurance/promise made by OP No.1 at the time of issuance of term deposit certificate. The further case of the complainants is that the complainants are controlled by the State Government. They have gathered the money being the P.F. contribution of retired and existing employees of the Corporation. So they deposited Rs.24.00 crores in all the cases together with the OPs. Since the agreed amount was not paid by OP Nos. 1 and 2, the complainants filed he complaint cases alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
4. OPs filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable as complainants are not consumer u/s 2(d) and (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the case of the OPs that the complainants have approached them to create FDRs under the Banking norms. Accordingly, 12 FDRs were issued on deposit of Rs.2.00 crores each. It is also said that the terms of deposit was also for 5 years. Since it was a special case, the OPs had agreed that no pre-payment charges would be charged if there is request to withdraw the amount prematuredly. Of course, the complainants instead of 5 years approached for encashment of FDRs after 4 years and 6 months of deposits. Since the complainant has withdrawn the amount as per their special request, as per the RBI guideline the amount as agreed to the complainants were paid. They also submitted that the OPs – Bank are under the control of OP No.5. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. So the complaint cases should be dismissed.
5. After considering the pleadings of both the parties, following issues are emerged:-
I) Whether the complainants are entitled to 10.75% interest or 7.75% interest?
II) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
Issue No.I
6. It is admitted fact that in order to give more interest to the concerned depositors, complainant approached the OP – Bank who agreed for deposit of amount in special circumstances. In this case the complainants have made agreement for making deposit with 10.75% interest for a period of 5 years and same fact has been admitted by the OP – Bank. Of course, the complainants submitted that they have encashed the money at 4 years 6 months and thereby the interest at the rate of 10.75% was not given. The interest of 10.75% was made available it is only under special circumstances as per the submission of both the parties. In this regard the complainants also proved vide Annexure – I which is as follows:-
“SBI RRL CAMPUS
The Managing Director,
OLIC Ltd.,
Nayapally, Bhubaneswar
Gen/25/95 24 March 2007
Dear Sir,
Term Deposit Scheme
Interest Rate
We have to advise term deposit interest rate for deposits 1 crore as follows:
- 46-90 days 10.25% p.a. qurly compounded
- 91-180 days 10.50% p.a. qurly compounded
- 181 days – 1 yr 10.75% p.a. qurly compounded
- 1 yr – upto 10 yrs 10.75% p.a. qurly compounded
No payment charges will be included on withdrawal of deposits before maturity.
Assuring you of our best services at all times.
Yours faithfully
Sd-
Branch Manager”
7. Complainants admitted that they have requested for encashment of money before completion of 5 years. When there is an agreement between the parties to follow one norm and if there is deviation of the same, then the normal rule will apply. But in the instant case, the complainant alleged that since they have already kept the huge money for 5 years, the encashment of money at 4 years 6 months should not be refunded with and any deduction of rate of interest as a special case. When we have found no agreement executed as to what will be the consequence of such situation in the event of premature, the term deposit condition as per Annexure – I does not stand to reason. On the other hand, the complainants have rescinded from the contract executed between the parties.
8. The OPs similarly produced the RBI Guidelines vide Annexure – C to show that as per clause 2.11, they are entitled to award interest not exactly as agreed upon between the parties. This clause 2.11 is relates to the premature withdrawal of term deposit. Once the agreement between the parties fails then the RBI circular will be followed.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that OP instead of keeping the terms has only disbursed the money as per their own norms as envisages under clause 2.11. We find that OP has denied to give penal interest on original contract cannot be said as illegal or incorrect. Thus, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP by not giving interest at the rate of 10.75% to the complainants are by giving 7.71% p.a. Issue No.I is answered accordingly.
Issue No.II
10. In view of the aforesaid issue we do not find the complainants are entitled to any compensation except the observation made above. Issue No.II is answered accordingly.
11. In the result, the complain petitions devoid of merit stand dismissed. However, here we want to mention that since the complainants are State Government undertaking and the money is involved of the workers and labourer contributed by them, the OP would take a special case for awarding interest as far as possible by not adhering to 7.75%. Therefore, while we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP but the OP should exercise the corporate social responsibility by considering the interest at the appropriate rate. No cost.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
