C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/98
COMPLAINANTS : 1. Ashoke Kumar Roy,
C/o Late Laksmi Narayan Roy,
P.O. Krishnagar, Chowrasta,
Dist. Nadia
2. Smt. Aloka Roy,
P.O. Krishnagar Chowrasta,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Branch Manager,
Nadia District Control Cooperative Bank Ltd.
(Krishnagar Main Branch)
P.O. Krishnagar
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 23rd February, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had 4 cash certificates of different denominations amounting to Rs. 45,000/- with the OP bank for the period from 04.10.91 to 04.10.94. After maturity he again reinvested the amount with the bank for a period of 2 years up to 04.10.96 and the bank accordingly paid him interest on compound basis. After 04.10.96 he did not renew the amount as usual and after 6 years on 05.10.02 he went to the bank and requested the authorized officer of the bank to renew the cash certificates with previous benefits at which the bank officer declined and told him that he was entitled to get only simple interest as per RBI circular on the ground that as per said circular he did not ask the bank to renew the certificates within 14 days since the date of maturity. Thereafter, he sent two letters separately to the bank officer on 01.11.02 and another letter to the General Manager, RBI on 04.12.02 with a request to give him compound interest on the invested amounts. Thereafter he did not follow up the matter due to his illness. Again on 06.06.09 he sent a letter to the Bank Officer to solve the matter but to no effect. Thereafter, he renewed the cash certificates on 03.10.08 in order to file this case before the Forum. His main allegation is that due to non-taking of step by the OP bank he is deprived of compound interest over the cash certificates amount for a period of 12 years which is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. So he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint. It is his submission also that the bank authority never intimated him about the circular of RBI, nor it was in published any newspaper also. The whole amount was within the custody of the bank which perhaps he utilized. Naturally he has claimed interest at compound rate for the above 12 years period over the cash certificate’s amount.
The OP has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature and the same is barred by limitations also. It is his specific contention that Sri Ashok Roy purchased 4 years’ cash certificate face value of which was Rs. 45,000/- in total on 04.10.91 and the rate of interest was 13.5% till the date of maturity on 04.10.94. After maturity on 04.10.95 he came to the bank and proposed for the renewal for 2 years and as per norms of the bank and following the RBI rules the same was renewed upto 04.10.96. But after maturity he did not take any step for renewal of the same. Rather on 01.11.02 he came to the bank after a lapse of 6 years and approached to renew the same in previous terms and conditions. But in the mean time on the basis of a circular and guidelines of RBI the norms of the bank has been changed, so this OP expressed his inability to concede with the proposal of the petitioner. The petitioner left the bank without giving any further instruction in this matter. Again on 06.06.09 he visited the bank and approached the OP to make reinvestment of the certificates as per the norms of the bank. In the mean time the petitioner sent a complaint to the RBI and RBI sought for explanation from the bank on the basis of the complaint. CEO of the bank sent a reply to the RBI and knowing the versions of the bank RBI sent a reply to Sri Roy also. Thereafter, on 04.10.08 the complainant visited the bank and reinvested the certificates with his full consent. So he has no cause of action to file this case and no question of deficiency in service on the part of the bank does arise. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
Point No.3: Is the case of the complainant barred by limitation.
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers of the parties it is available on record that admittedly this complainant Ashoke Roy invested Rs. 45,000/- in 4 cash certificates on different denominations on 04.10.91 and the maturity date was 04.10.94. After lapse of one year, he visited the bank on 05.10.95 and approached for reinvestment of the matured amount for a further period of two years w.e.f., 05.10.94. Accordingly, the bank following the RBI rules reinvested the same for a period of two years on and from 05.10.94 to 04.10.96. From the petition of compliant it is available that after a lapse of 6 years since the date of maturity the complainant visited the bank on 05.10.02 with a request to reinvest the said amount as per previous rate of interest at which the bank declined on the ground that the approach was not made within 14 days since the date of maturity as per RBI Circular. From the petition of complaint we find that even after that reply by the bank the complainant remained silent for a long period and he again visited the bank on 06.06.09. From the written version it is available also that though the amount was in the custody of the bank, but without the instruction of the complainant the OP could not reinvest the said amount further. Besides this the OP declined his inability to pay interest as per compound rate following the guidelines of the RBI. He has relied on the order passed by the bank dtd. 08.08.02 from which it is available that as per guidelines of the RBI dtd. 19.04.01 vide memo No. RPCD No. RF.DIR.BC.76/07.38.01/2000-01 the bank passed an order in which it is laid down “In case of overdue deposits, where the overdue period exceeds 14 days and the depositor places entire amount of overdue deposit or a part thereof as a fresh term deposits, interest rate for the overdue period on the amount so placed as a fresh term deposit, the bank may fix its own interest rates for the overdue period on the amount so placed as a fresh deposit.” It is also laid down in the order that ”The total amount of the overdue term deposit or the part thereof is renewed from the date of its maturity till some future date provided the overdue period from the date of its maturity till the date of renewal does not exceed 14 days.” By another order No. 3956 dtd. 09.11.02 the bank circulated the latest rate of interest on savings, current and term deposits. So on a careful perusal of the order issued by the bank from time to time specially the orders dtd. 08.08.02 and 09.11.02 it is clear that if the customer approaches for renewal of his term deposit for further after the expiry of 14 days since the date of maturity the bank is not bound to sanction interest at previous rate, rather at the rate prevailing at that time and the bank was authorized to fix his own interest rates for the overdue period as fresh deposit. So considering both the orders, we hold that the complainant cannot claim compound interest at previous rate upon his deposits which he intimated for reinvest on 05.10.02 and subsequently on 06.06.07 as on those two dates more than 6 years lapsed in each case and the period of 14 days was already over after the date of maturity. Besides this the complainant moved before the Reserve Bank of India on 04.12.02 and also to the Chairman, Bank Ombudsman on 12.09.07 on the basis of which the RBI sought explanation to the OP bank who also sent a reply to the RBI on 05.02.08, inter alia, stating why he failed to accept the approach of the complainant to give him interest at compound rate. He has categorically stated in his letter that after following RBI guidelines he issued a new circular on 08.08.02 in which it is categorically stated that no interest at previous rate can be claimed if the deposit is not renewed within 14 days since the date of its maturity. On getting that letter the RBI authority sent a reply to the complainant on 04.01.08, inter alia, stating that the complaint filed by the complainant did not come within the purview of the banking ombudsman scheme, 2006 as the OP bank was not included in the scheme and accordingly, he expressed his inability to take any step against the OP bank. Besides this after getting this letter the complainant further reinvested the amount to the OP bank on 04.10.08 for a period of one year with maturity date fixing on 04.10.09. So from the conduct of this complainant, we find that being satisfied with the rules and regulations of the OP bank and the RBI the complainant reinvested the amount on 04.10.08. Considering the above facts of this case, we hold that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.
Ld. lawyer for the OP submits that the case is barred by limitation also. Admittedly, the disputed amount matured on 04.10.96 and the complainant visited the OP bank on 05.10.02 for renewal of the said amount and again on 06.06.07. He sent a letter to the OP bank on 06.06.07 expressing his grievances and claiming interest upon the deposited amount and he filed a letter on 01.11.02 and again on 04.12.02. The RBI gave him reply against his letter dtd. 12.09.07 on 04.01.08. But the present case was filed on 27.09.10. So considering the all these, we find that the case was filed after a lapse of 2 years since the date of sending letter to the OP bank and the RBI also though the RBI is not a party in this case. There is no whisper in the petition of complaint why he did not file this case in time since the date of 06.06.07. So our considered view is that the case is barred by limitation also.
In view of the above discussions, our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove his case and so he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/98 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
