PRESENT

                   Complainant by Adv.Smt. Nilimaa Jariwalaa  present.      

                    Opponent  Absent.            

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)                  

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against opposite party, one namely Central Bank of India, No. 2 Central Bank of India through regional manager and Opposite party no. 3 Pooranmal Agrawal. The forum admitted the complaint by order dated 6.9. 2012 only against opposite party no. 1 i.e. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA through branch manager, Kher Nagar Branch, Bandra  (E), Mumbai.
2. The complainant is customer of opponent bank since inception of Kher Nagar Branch, Bandra. The complainant stated that his father Roshan Agarwal opened PPF account no. 710 in name of complainant on 27.03.1999. He was depositing the amount in the said account from time to time as per the PPF Act. He has never exceeded the upper limit.
3. It is the contention of complainant that the opponent bank realized their mistake, about excess amount deposited in his PPF A/c and interest paid on the said excess amount  in the year 2005, and accordingly opponent bank refunded the excess amount to complainant but forfeited the amount of interest  credited to the PPF A/c of complainant.
4. The complainant  alleged that, opposite party has not maintained standard in providing services. The opponent party has never shown sincere approach in resolving the grievance which according to complainant amounts to unfair trade practice adopted by opposite party.
5. The complainant states that he sent letters to bank and also approached to Banking Ombudsman however, issue was not settled. He alleged that opposite party intimated him that he has violated the rules by opening PPF account for himself and his family members of the PPF scheme.
6. The complainant stated that Bank was under an obligation to properly scrutinize the PPF forms and ought not to have opened the accounts and also should not have accepted deposits  in violation  of  rules. He stated that opposite party knowingly indulged in  unfair trade practice in as much as inviting public for opening of PPF account and subsequently violating rules.  
7. The complainant  stated that he issued one composite notice on 24.09.2009 through advocate to the opposite party. However opposite party failed to comply or reply the said notice. He sent voluminous letters but opposite party neglected to take proper action as per rules, which caused him pain and mental agony in addition to financial loss.
8. The Complainant filed composite complaint of all PPF account holder of his family before Hon'ble State Commission vide C.C. no. 201/2010 on 14.10.2010. The Complaint was withdrawn as per order dated 24.02.2012 passed by Hon'ble State Commission. The present Complaint is filed within limitation.
9. The Complainant prayed for refund of amount with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as compensation and cost.
10. The Central Bank of India filed written statement and resisted the claim. The opponent raised issue of the maintainability, limitation and suppression of material facts.
11. The opponent alleged that, it is a presumption that when one opens the account in bank  is bound to know each and every details related to particulars of  account.
12.  The opponent party  stated that, the complainant before opening the PPF account is bound to know all provisions of law relating to this scheme under which he is supposed to invest such amount including his other accounts in the name of minors.
13. The  opposite party  stated that the complainant is esteemed customer of the bank having various types of accounts and is also habitual complainer about officials of opponent even before police.
14. The opposite party  stated that complainant went on the depositing the amount in excess limit. When the account was scrutinized the said mistake was rectified in the interest of public at large, as per rule and regulation of law applicable to PPF.
15. The opposite party stated that that complainant is demanding unjustified and illegal claim irrespective of the fact that all grievances were promptly dealt with by officers of bank from time to time. It is prayed that complainant being vexations and frivolous, be dismissed with the cost.
16. The complainant has filed on record about forty documents i.e. letters sent to bank and various authorities during period between 2005 and 2009. We have carefully perused the documents filed on record by opposite party and complainant.
17. The perusal of the letter dated 11.04.2005 sent by Roshan Agarwal to managing director of Bank shows that the complainant made grievance against Mr. Vivek who was Branch Manager, alleging  that he was not dealing properly to him in dealing with accounts. The Majority of documents relates to PPF account and grievance made before authorities.
18. The records shows that complainant opened PPF account no. 706,709,710,1053 in the bank. According to complainant the opposite party debited an amount of Rs. 10,83,600/- (Ten Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred Rupees) in respect of above PPF account numbers. The records also indicates that the bank forfeited  an  amount of about Rs. 3,39,411/- (Three Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Eleven Rupees) in respect of above mentioned PPF accounts.
19. The opposite party relied on following provisions of Public Provident Fund Scheme 1968.

3. Limit of Subscription:

(1)  Any individual may on his own behalf or on behalf of    minor of whom he is guardian, subscribe to the public provident fund any amount not less than Rs. 500/- and not more than Rs. 70,000/- in a year.

(8)If the contribution in excess of Rs. 60,000/- (Now Rs. 70,000) are made during a year by subscriber the deposits in excess of Rs. 60,000/- (Now Rs. 70,000) will be traded as irregular subscription and will not carry any interest not this excess amount will be eligible for rebate under section 88 of Income Tax Act. This excess amount will be refunded by the account office to the subscriber without any interest.

20. The complainant contended that the PPF account no. 710 was opened on 27.03.1999 and only one account was in  name of Yash Agarwal the bank has taken the decision of debiting and forfeiting amount any due intimation to the complainant and credited sums to other accounts.
21. As per law, the Complainant is presumed to have knowledge of the provisions of PPF account at the time of opening of the account on 27.03.1999. The PPF accounts holders have certain  privilege and benefits in Income tax  payment.  In view of these privileges and certain benefits.
22. We have perused the rules and regulations governing the PPF. The Complainant has deposited the amount and bank has accepted the said amount during the period between 1999 to 2005, in violation of PPF rules.
23. We are of the considered view that, complainant is under an obligation to follow the PPF rules and opposite party is also under an obligation to act as per rule  while dealing with account as per law. The PPF account is opened as there are benefits attached to same. The opposite party is also expected to know the rules of PPF scheme while opening the account and accepting the amount in the said account. The opposite party was under an obligation to guide properly to the complainant and to accept the amount as per the limits provided under PPF scheme. We are of the opinion that both parties are equally responsible for the irregularity in violating the prescribed norms dealing with amount deposited in the account.
24. We are of the view that, opposite party is a trustee of the amount deposited by account holder and also guide and protector of the financial interest of the consumer. The account office of bank is liable to refund the excess amount within a reasonable time.
25. The opposite party is acting against financial interest of esteemed consumer.  This act of bank would result in wrongful gain to bank and wrongful loss to complainant.
26. We are of the opinion that the opponent being a reputed bank of Government of India should not have refunded the amount without interest. We feel it proper in the interest of justice, considering the fact that, public money is involved and considering the interest of both parties, the opposite party is liable to pay interest on the amount accepted in excess of permitted limits provided under PPF scheme.
27. We are of the opinion that opposite party is under an obligation to verify all the amount and ascertain whether the said amount can be legally permitted as per PPF scheme. The opposite party is under an obligation to pay all the benefits to complainant in respect of amounts paid within the limits of the PPF scheme. The opposite party is liable to pay reasonable interest on the amounts accepted beyond the PPF scheme. The opposite party is not justified to forfeit the amount as has been done in the present case.
28. We therefore direct to opposite party to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the excess amount deposited by complainant and accepted by opposite party from the date of deposit till the date of  realization   of the said amount  in respective account No. 710.  
29. Considering the fact that both sides are equally responsible for the mistake in dealing with PPF account. We are of opinion that both parties to bear their own cost. We hold that complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation for mental agony as prayed, being equally responsible for the mistake.
30. In the result we pass following order.

                              Order

1. RBT Complaint Case No. 357/2012 is partly allowed.

2.       The Central Bank of India is directed  to pay interest to complainant on

           refunded amount of Rs. 4,87,600/- ( Four lakh eighty seven thousand six

           hundred only)  @ 6 % p.a. from the date of deposit  of this amount in  the

          PPF A/c of complainant till realization of total amount of interest.        

3.       No order as to cost and compensation.

4.        Copy of this order be sent to both parties.