NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1586/2010

RAM CHANDRA CHOUBEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRMAN /C.M.D. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SUBRATA DASS

18 May 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29 Apr 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1586/2010
(Against the Order dated 09/03/2010 in Appeal No. 1645/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
1. RAM CHANDRA CHOUBEY R/o. At Village & Post Office, Poudhan RampurSultanpurUttar Pradesh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. CHAIRMAN /C.M.D. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Head Office 7- Bhikajicama PlaceNew DelhiDelhi2. BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKSultanpur Steel City BranchBokaroJharkhand3. BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKSultanpur Chowk BranchSultanpurUttar Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. SUBRATA DASS
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 18 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Father of the petitioner took a FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- on 4.3.1980.  He was murdered on 25.7.1981.  Date of maturity of the FDR was 11.6.1985.  His father had made a will in favour of the petitioner and his brother.  Dispute arose between the petitioner and his brother and, accordingly, the parties were directed to get the succession certificate.  Petitioner obtained the succession certificate in his favour.  On receipt of the succession certificate, the bank paid a sum of Rs.1,31,691/- to the petitioner on 27.1.2001.  Alleging that the bank was supposed to pay Rs.4,71,000/- but actually paid the sum of Rs.1,31,691/- leaving a difference of Rs.3,39,419/-, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% on Rs.50,000/- from 4.3.1980 to 11.6.1985 and thereafter simple rate of interest prevalent on the date of maturity for the period 12.6.1985 to 27.1.2001 within 90 days.  Rs.1,500/- were awarded by way of damages and Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenses.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  The fora below have held that the petitioner could be paid interest in terms of Rule 14(3) framed by Reserve Bank of India, which reads as under :

In the event of death of depositor before the date of maturity of the deposit and the amount claimed after the date of maturity, the bank shall pay interest at the contracted rate till the date of maturity.  From the date of maturity to the date of payment the bank shall pay simple interest at the applicable rate operate on the date of maturity for the period which the deposit remained with the bank beyond the date of maturity.”

 

          Petitioner could be paid simple rate of interest after the date of  maturity of the FDR in terms of Rule 14(3).

            We find no infirmity in the orders passed by the fora below.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER