PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
On 06/03/1996 the complainant deposited in all Rs.2,70,000/- in 27 deposits of Rs.10,000/- each in the investment scheme floated by the Opposite Party, styled as “Reinvestment Certificate Scheme” (RIC). On 28/02/1996 he had invested sum of Rs.14,000/- (28 FDRs) and Rs.10,000/-(6 FDRs). The Complainant has thus deposited total amount of Rs.7,22,000/- in RIC – FD of Opposite Party for the period of 3 years. Maturity amount on aforesaid FDR’s was Rs.14,86,432/-.
2) It is averred in the complaint that the Complainant deposited aforesaid amounts in the fictitious names for the purpose of income tax saving. The Income Tax Department had issued prohibitory order under Chapter XIVB of the Income Tax Act and thereby, an amount of Rs.17,09,00,881/- of the Opposite Party was brought under that prohibitory order. The amount invested by the Complainant was also formed part and parcel of that prohibitory order, though it was income of the Complainant.
3) It is submitted that after prolonged litigations between Opposite Party Bank and the Income Tax Department, some of the depositors had filed Writ Petition in the High Court, at Mumbai challenging the action in bringing the individual deposits in the net of bank’s income. It is submitted by the Complainant that Government of India declared scheme of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 by the Finance Act, 1997 and the Complainant was entitled to seek a tax amnesty in respect of his FDR.
4) The aforesaid total amount of Rs.7,22,000/- was deposited by the Complainant in various RIC-FDR in 1996 was for the period of 3 years and Opposite Party was under obligation to refund the aforesaid amount alongwith interest accrued thereon on the date of maturity. However, due to peculiar situation the amount was not refunded on the date of maturity i.e. in the year 1999. As per circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the Complainant is entitled to get back maturity amount alongwith interest accrued thereon till the date of actual refund of the amount by the Opposite Party. On 18/08/2003 Opposite Party Bank paid maturity amount of the aforesaid FD’s to the Complainant. It is alleged that Opposite Party forced the Complainant to submit declaration/affidavit binding upon various terms and conditions enter alia one of the term was incorporated that the net amount payable to the Complainant under FDs is the principle amount and interest accumulated till maturity of date of FDs. Thereby the Complainant is deprived of getting interest on the maturity amount from the date of maturity i.e.from the year 1999 till 18/08/2003.
5) It is submitted that from time to time the Complainant was constant/personally in touch with the Opposite Party to get information about actual amount of interest payable on those FDs after date of maturity till the date of payment as per regulations of Reserve Bank of India. No response was given by the Opposite Party to the repeated requests of the Complainant. So the Complainant applied for information under Right of Information Act. Opposite Party vide their letter dtd.05/09/2006 informed the Complainant that Right of Information Act is not applicable to Private Sector Bank.
6) It is stated in complaint in para no.16 that non-payment of interest which is due and payable from the date of maturity is continuous cause of action and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. The Complainant has calculated interest on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till the date of actual payment @ 12 % p.a. at Rs.7,13,487/-. As Opposite Parties have not paid aforesaid interest on maturity amount, the Complainant has filed the complaint and has requested to direct Opposite Party to pay Rs.7,13,487/- as an accrued interest after date of maturity and till the date of actual payment with interest @ 4 % till realization. He has requested to direct Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience and cost of this complaint to the Complainant.
7) Opposite Party has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending interalia that the allegations made in the complaint are false and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
8) Opposite Party has admitted the fact that total amount of Rs.7,22,000/- was deposited in various FDRs as stated in the complaint on or about 28/02/1996. However, according to the Opposite Party aforesaid FDR’s were not in the name of Complainant. The Complainant has admitted this fact in the declaration dtd.18/08/2003. It is contention of the Opposite Party that present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone in view of the provisions of Benami Transactions Prohibitions Act.
9) It is admitted fact that after maturity date there was no renewal of the said FDs. The Complainant has admitted that he has received maturity amount of aforesaid RIC–FDR amounting to Rs.14,86,432/-. As Opposite Party has already paid maturity amount to the Complainant in the year 2003 the Opposite Party is not liable to pay interest after date of maturity as claimed by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has accepted maturity amount as full satisfaction and in this regard he had made declaration on 18/08/2003. In view of aforesaid declaration, the Complainant is estopped from making any claim against the Opposite Party.
10) It is condition of the Opposite Party that the complaint is barred by law of limitation as period of more than 3 years was elapsed from the accrual of alleged cause of action till the date of filing of complaint.
11) Opposite Party has denied allegations made in complaint that in view of RBI Circular even FDs which are not renewed by the depositor, the depositor is entitled to get interest on that amount till actual date of payment. It is denied that even after the date of maturity till the date of actual payment, Opposite Party has kept the said amount in circulation. According to the Opposite Party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
12) Alongwith complaint, the Complainant has filed documents as per list of documents. The Complainant has filed affidavit in support of complaint. He has filed affidavit in rejoinder and thereby denied allegations made by Opposite Party in the written statement. In this case both parties have filed their affidavit of evidence and respective written arguments.
13) Heard oral submission of Ld.Advocate, Mr.Ganesh Shirke for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate, Mr.Dinesh Mishra for the Opposite Party. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that present complaint is barred by law of limitation and deserves to be dismissed with cost.
14) Following points arise for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under –
SR.NO. |
POINTS |
FINDINGS |
1. |
Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation ? |
Yes. |
2. |
Whether the Complainant is entitle to relief as claimed in the complaint ? |
No |
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :-According to the Complainant in the month of February and March, 1996 he deposited total amount of Rs.7,22,000/- in various Reinvestment Certificates/FD’s of the Opposite Party Bank. The amounts were deposited for fixed period of 3 years. After maturity the Complainant was entitled to get maturity amount of Rs.14,86,432/- as per statement annexed to the Complainant. Opposite Party has admitted the fact that stated in the complaint that total amount of Rs.7,22,000/- was deposited by the Complainant with Opposite Party. However, according to the Opposite Party, the aforesaid amounts were not deposited in the name of Complainant. The Complainant has admitted that the deposits were made in the fictitious names for the purpose of tax saving. According to the Opposite Party, as FDRs were not in the name of Complainant, present complaint is not maintainable in view of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act.
The Opposite Party has raised specific contention that this complaint is not filed within prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, it is barred by law of limitation. It is undisputed fact that in the February and March, 1996 the Complainant had kept in various FDR’s total amount of Rs.7,22,000/- in the scheme known as RIC floated by Opposite Party. The amounts were kept in fixed deposit for the period of 3 years. After maturity the Complainant was entitled to get maturity amount of Rs.14,86,432/- in the year 1999. However, Income Tax department issued prohibitory order against the Opposite Party Bank and thereby an amount of Rs.17,09,00,881/- was brought under the prohibitory order. Amount deposited by the depositor was also part of the said amount. Prolonged litigation was going on between the Bank and Income Tax Department. The Complainant was entitled to get maturity amount in the year 1999 but due to litigation between Opposite Party and Income Tax Department he could not get maturity amount. Maturity amount was paid to him by the Opposite Party on 18/08/2003. It is submitted that on 18/08/2003 only the maturity value was paid to the Complainant. Interest due on maturity amount from the year 1999 till18/08/2003 was not paid to the Complainant. Ld.Advocate, Mr.Ganesh Shirke has submitted on behalf of the Complainant that after receipt of payment of maturity value from time to time the Complainant was in constant touch with the Opposite Party to get information about actual amount of interest payable on those FDs. However, Opposite Party Bank did not give any response so the Complainant. Ultimately the Complainant filed an application under the Right of Information Act. Opposite Party vide their letter dtd.05/09/2007 informed the Complainant that Right of Information Act is not applicable to Private Sector Bank. It is submitted on behalf of Complainant that after receipt of reply letter dtd.05/09/2007 the Complainant has filed this complaint which is within prescribed period of limitation.
Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that even according to the Complainant, his FDRs were matured in the year 1999. In the complaint it is stated that due to prolonged dispute between Opposite Party and Income Tax Department, Opposite Party paid maturity value of its deposits on 18/08/2003. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that it is grievance of the Complainant that Opposite Party has not paid interest on the maturity amount from 1999 till the date of actual payment i.e. till 18/08/2003. Therefore, cause of action to this compliant took place from 18/08/2003. It is submitted that at the time of accepting of maturity amount, the Complainant has given declaration on the stamp papers that he has accepting the maturity value of FDR as full and final satisfaction. There was no renewal of FDR and as such, the Complainant is not entitled to get further interest on the maturity amount. The Complainant has alleged that Opposite Party forcibly to give aforesaid declaration. If it was grievance of the Complainant that using force he was compelled to sign declaration then complaint ought to have lodged against Opposite Party immediately after 18/08/2003. It is submitted by the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party that as cause of action took place on 18/08/2003, the Complainant was supposed to file complaint within 2 years from the date of cause of action. However, present complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Forum on 03/01/2007. Complaint is not filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is no application for condonation of delay. The complaint is barred by law of limitation and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
As discussed above cause of action for this complaint took place on 18/08/2003. As per the provision of Sec.24A of the Consumer Protection Act, it was necessary for the Complainant to file complaint within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The Complainant has filed complaint on 03/01/2007 i.e. after about 3 years and 3 months from the date of cause of action. Delay of about 1 year and 3 months is caused in filling of this complaint. There is no application for condonation of delay. In the matter of State Bank of India V/s. B.S.Agricultural Industries(I), 2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “the provision of Sec.24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is peremptory in nature and requires a Consumer Forum to see before it admits a complaint that it has been filed within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action”.
Present complaint is not filed within prescribed period of limitation. There is no application for condonation of delay. The complaint is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, answer of point no.1 is in the negative.
Point No.2 :-As the complaint is barred by law of limitation the Complainant is not entitle to claim any relief against Opposite Party. Therefore, point no.2 is answered in the negative. Present complaint is barred by law of limitation therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.02/2007 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
