KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.581/05
JUDGMENT DATED 20/11/2010
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
The Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Payyannur Branch, -- APPELLANT
Payyannur. ( By Adv.P.Balakrishnan)
Vs.
M.easwaran Namboodiri,
S/0 Krishnan Namboodiri
U.N.House, Annur.P.O, -- RESPONDENT
Annur.
(By Adv.Dani J.Paul)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in OP.407/03, order dated 8th April 2005. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant.
This appeal prefers from the impugned order passed by the Forum below directed the opposite party to refund the interest an amount of Rs.29,339/- along with compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.500/-to the complainant within one month from the date of the order.
In short; the complainant has made a fixed deposit in erstwhile Nedungadi Bank Ltd; for Rs.6,84.311/- on 2.8.2000 maturing on 2.8.03 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On 28.2.03, the Nedungadi Bank was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank as per notification of Government of India. When the complainant approached for matured proceeds of the deposit, the bank unilaterally reduced the rate of interest and paid reducing amount Rs.29,339/- in the interest amount. Hence the complainant for getting compensation and loss of interest from the opposite party.
The opposite party appeared and filed their written version and contended that the complainant is not maintainable and he is not a consumer. They also contended that not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract expressed or implied, interest from the prescribed date shall be paid in respect of accounts with the transferee bank, credited in accordance with the provisions of the scheme only at such rates as the transferee bank normally allow on his deposit from such accounts. So, the appellant bank has not reduced the interest unilaterally. The opposite party has to follow the guideness given in the scheme of the amalgamation. There is no fault on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any amount or compensation or interest and he has no cause of action unilaterally. So, it is liable to be dismissed.
At the time of the prior to the bill marked as Ext.A1 to A4 as a documents on the part of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B2 documents for the opposite party.
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum below taken in a view that due to the amalgamation; a third party is not legally bound to follow the schemes. It is not binding to him. He entered into an agreement with the opposite party/bank before the amalgamation. He deposited his amount for a prescribed period, for a contract of interest between both parties. The opposite party did produce the document of the rate of interest before the maturity of the deposit.
In the result, the Forum below passed the above impugned order it was challenged by the appellant before this Commission.
On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, counsel for the appellant and respondent are present and the counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per the scheme and the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India they did not pay the interest at the rate of 12% to the complainant. He even not in a party in the amalgamation; or the memorandum of understanding; then also he is a parted parcel of the amalgamation scheme. He cited 2 decisions, they are from the Hon. High Court of Kerala (1987 KLT 809) and the National Commission (AIR 2007 ( NOC) 2505 (NCC) for the support of his arguments. This Commission heard in detail and perused the entire evidence available in this case records and reached in a conclusion that either the scheme or the amalgamation is not specifying any rate of the interest, for the purpose of reduction or enhancement. The fact and circumstances of the above cited decisions are entirely different from the fact and circumstance of this case. In this case; the scheme is very clearly saying that due to the amalgamation the Panjab National Bank is having all the liberty to transfer the existing fixed deposit in their name. (Bank’s name) But, in the scheme nothing is seeing that the Panjab National Bank or the Nedungadi Bank have the right to reduce the contract interest before the maturity rate. In other words amalgamation MOU and contract or an agreement is not binding to a depositor; he is not a party in the amalgamation process. He need not waste his interest due to this reason.
The learned counsel appeared for the appellant argued that the amalgamation was a step taken by Nedungadi Bank to protect interest of the depositors also. Otherwise the complainant and other depositors will not get anything; if in the event of the liquidation. It is not a settled position of law. Amalgamation is not a steps taken not only in the basis of a sickness of companies. But it is a present business tactics also. Suppose a large group is purchasing all the shares of the company the management of the company will be changed and their policies also to be changed. It is also that the amalgamation is effected to avoid the situation of the liquidation. We are not seeing any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the forum below. The complainant deposited his own hard money in the bank for a specific period only to get the assured interest. He did not response the amalgamation etc. The appellant is not also liable to pay the enhanced interest rate on or before the maturity of the fixed deposit, suppose the Punjab National Bank’s interest is higher the existing assured interest rate of the Nedungadi Bank.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own dhasti. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
