RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 807 of 2010
1- State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2- Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Firozabad Branch, District Firozabad. ..Appellants.
Versus
Dr. Nisha Agarwal d/o Sri Jaswant Rao Agarwal,
R/o 35/17, Gali No.1, Durga Nagar, Qusba,
District Firozabad . ...Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.
Shri D.P. Dwivedi for the appellant.
Shri Devendra Nautiyal for the respondent.
Date 15.5.2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member)
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.3.2010, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Firozabad in complaint case No.193 of 2008, the appellant State Bank of India and another have preferred the instant appeal.
The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had opened an account no.10850567012 under NHB Savings Bank scheme in the year 1991 in the State Bank of India, Firozabad where the complainant was to earn 10% interest on the deposits. The OP kept crediting the interest till 28.2.2006 but subsequently the interest was not credited and when the respondent/complainant contacted the OP no.2 then they told that the computer feeding was going on and the interest will be credited automatically thereafter. On
(2)
27.8.2007, when the complainant contacted the OP no.2 then instead of crediting the interest she was given a cheque dated 9.8.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,78,385.00 and was told that the scheme has been unilaterally closed. The complainant objected and stated that the OP could not close account unilaterally and if at all the account was to be closed then the amount of Rs.4,28,881.69 shown in the account and the interest of 10% from 28.2.2006 be credited and the compensation be given. When the complainant was not given the balance amount then she filed the case in the Forum where the OP filed their WS submitting therein that the scheme was launched and closed as per direction of the National Housing Bank, wholly owned by the Reserve Bank of India. In fact the scheme came to an end on 29.3.2005 but the interest was wrongly credited in the above account after that date. The auditor had pointed out the mistake in the account that the interest was not payable as per the scheme after 29.3.2005. The scheme was closed as per direction of the Reserve Bank of India hence, the complainant was not entitled for any compensation as the OP had not committed any deficiency in service. In fact, the rate of interest was reduced form 10% to 5% from 1.3.2004 hence, a sum of Rs.16,294.00 has wrongly been credited in the said account which the complainant is liable to pay. The complaint is based on wrong facts hence, liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order on 4.3.2010 as under:-
(3)
”परिवादिया यह परिवाद इस प्रकार स्वीकार किया जाता है कि विपक्षीगण परिवादिया के खाते में दिनांक 28/02/2006 को दर्शायी गयी जमा धनराशि 428881 रू0 पर दिनांक 1/3/2006 से 27/8/2007 तक 10 प्रतिशत वार्षिक सूद अदा करे तथा इस प्रकार उत्पन्न कुल धनराशि में से अदा की गयी धनराशि 378385 रू0 को को कम करके शेष धनराशि परिवादिया को अदा करे तथा उक्त धनराशि पर परिवाद प्रस्तुत करने की दिनांक से अदायगी के दिनांक तक 10 प्रतिशत वार्षिक सूद भी अदा करे। परिवादिया विपक्षीगण से 5000रू0 क्षतिपूर्ति तथा 1500 रू0 वाद व्यय भी प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी है।”
Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred.
The main grounds of the appeal are that the Home Loan scheme was closed by the National Housing Bank from 29.3.2005 and the auditor in his report dated 7.3.2007 has pointed out the aforesaid fact hence, the appellant Bank had refunded the money amounting to Rs.3,78,385.00 to the respondent/complainant after calculating the interest till 29.3.2005. The appellant Bank had credited interest in the respondent's account by mistake till February, 2006 and hence, on 28.2.2006 the total amount alongwith interest was shown in the respondent's account as Rs.4,20,472.25. Since as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the interest was reduced from 10% to 5% from 1.3.2004 hence, the respondent/complainant was wrongly paid interest @ 10% p.a. from 1.3.2004 to 29.3.2005. Hence, the complainant is liable to repay Rs.16,294.00. As per section 72 of the India Contract Act, it was the liability of the respondent/ complainant to repay the amount wrongly credited in the
(4)
account of the respondent, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Forum is based on wrong facts and is therefore, liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.
The respondent/complainant has also filed counter affidavit mainly submitting therein that no notice as per Circular dated 4.11.2005 was given to the complainant, therefore, the appellant/OP committed deficiency in service. Besides the appellant has tried to save the concerned officer. From the report of the auditor, illegal action was taken against the complainant. The ld. Forum has passed the correct order and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Heard arguments of the parties and perused the entire records.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the appellant/OP had committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service in not making the payment of the amount credited in the account of the as shown on 28.2.2006. It is also to be seen as to whether the appellant/OP had the authority to unilaterally close the scheme. If so its consequences ?
These two points are related to each other, therefore, they are decided together. It is admitted that the respondent/complainant had opened an account with the appellant/OP under National Housing Bank Scheme where the interest @ 10% was payable on the deposits and that till 28.2.2006 a sum of Rs.4,28,881.00 was credited in the account of the respondent/complainant. It is also not disputed that the complainant was paid a sum of Rs.3,78,385.00 on 9.8.2007. It is argued by the ld. counsel
(5)
for the appellant/OP that the aforesaid scheme was closed as per the direction of the National Housing Bank conveyed by the Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India vide letter dated 4.11.2005. As per the instruction contained, the existing account holder could continue to hold the account only upto March 29, 2005 or till completion of 5 years from the date of opening the account whichever is later. From the letter of the National Housing Bank dated 17.5.2004, it transpires that it was decided to close the Home Loan account scheme and that the rate of interest has been reduced from 10% to 5% w.e.f. 1.3.2004. It is also mentioned in that letter that the existing account holder could hold the account only upto March 29, 2005. Now on the basis of these circulars, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant/OP that as per the aforesaid scheme the interest was reduced from 10% to 5% w.e.f. March 1, 2004 and was closed positively by 29th March, 2005 but inadvertently, the complainant's account was being credited with 10% interest and was not closed on 29.3.2005 and when this mistake was pointed out by the auditor then the complainant was refunded the amount of Rs.3,78,385.00 on 9.8.2007 as per the rate of interest and provision of the circulars of the scheme. It is further argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that for the inadvertent mistake of keeping on crediting the amount of interest as 10% and not closing the account on 29.3.2005, the complainant could not derive any benefit. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent/ complainant that the notice of circulars was not given to
(6)
the complainant and therefore, main ingredients of the termination of the scheme which was to be made applicable to the complainant was missing and hence, the complainant can not be deprived of the interest accumulated in the account of the complainant for none of her fault. We find that as per the circulars letter dated 17.5.2004 of the National Housing Bank the aforesaid scheme was closed on 29.3.2005 and the accumulated savings and interest were to be refunded to the account holders but that has not been done by the appellant/OP. Not only this, the circular of the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India dated 4.11.2005 makes mention of the fact that "The depositors of all HLAS accounts which have not been closed as yet, may be issued another notice of closure stating that the deposit will not earn any interest from March 29, 2005. Similar notices should be served on the depositors at least twice in future after which the you should send a final notice to the depositor advising him/her to collect the payment and also advising him that the amount will be remitted to National Housing Bank, New Delhi if he fails to collect the payment. If any amount remains unclaimed thereafter, the same should be returned to NHB and will be duly dealt with by NHB at that time.”
This part of the circular has also not been complied with by the appellant. What to talk of issuing notices, in fact the concerned appellant/OP Branch was not even aware of such circulars and it is only when the auditor pointed out the blunder then the complainant's account was closed and she was refunded back the amount which
(7)
was much less than what was being shown as balance in the account. When no notice of the circular was issued to the complainant as was the mandate of the circular nor the amount refunded back immediately after the date of the closure of the scheme and the account was kept on being credited with the interest accrued thereon then it certainly is the fault of the appellant/OP and for their fault or negligence, the respondent/complainant could not be penalized. If at all the Bank was not liable to make payment of the interest as per the scheme after its closure then those who kept on crediting the interest should have been penalized and the Bank should have taken action against such officials who did not comply with the circular letters issued by their own Chief General Manager.
So there is no justification for not making payment of the balance as existing on 7.3.2007 when the auditor had pointed out the mistake to the Bank officials of the OP. Therefore, the appellant did commit deficiency in service. The complainant should have been paid the amount of Rs.4,28,881.69 as it was existing on 28.2.2006 and interest of 10% on this amount till 7.3.2007 and thereafter, simple interest @ 6% from the amount due i.e. from 8.3.2007 till 9.8.2007 when the amount of Rs.3,78,385.00 was paid to the complainant. Thus, the amount is to be calculated from 28.2.2006 of Rs.4,28,881.69 with 10% interest till 7.3.2007 and on this amount the interest @ 6% is payable w.e.f. 7.3.2007 till 9.8.2007 and out of the entire amount so calculated Rs.3,78,385.00 is to be deducted and the balance to be paid to the respondent/complainant within a month. If the
(8)
amount is not paid within a month then the appellant/OP will pay interest @10% on it. The appeal is liable to be partly allowed accordingly.
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is amended to the extent that the amount is to be calculated from 28.2.2006 of Rs.4,28,881.69 with 10% interest till 7.3.2007 and on this amount the interest @ 6% is payable w.e.f. 8.3.2007 till 9.8.2007 and out of the entire amount so calculated Rs.3,78,385.00 is to be deducted and the balance to be paid to the respondent/complainant within a month. If the amount is not paid within a month then the appellant/OP will pay interest @10% on it. Rest part of the order shall remain as it is.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Raj Kamal Gupta)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.4
