DOF.22/12/07 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 14th day of June 2010 C.C.No.205/2007 Sudan Moolakkal, Thamaramkulangara, Edat .P.O, PAH.P.P.Usha, W/o.Sudhan Moolakkal, Thamaramkulangara, Edat .P.O., Payyannur. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.P.P.Sureshkumar) Manager, Canara Bank Payyannur Branch, VPM Complex, Payyannur Opposite party (Rep. by Adv.T.Ramakrishnan) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.33, 110/- to the complainant towards the due amount, interest and compensation for mental pain. The case of the complainant is that he is a non-resident Indian and had deposited Rs.6,00,000/- in the opposite party’s bank on 18.7.03 and the opposite party issued a deposit receipt bearing No.CDNR.0253170 with maturity date on 18.706 and the maturity value as Rs.7,06,841/- on 18.7.03. After the maturity date the complainant approached the opposite party bank for encashing the FD with original F.D receipt, the opposite party represented to the complainant that he is entitled to only Rs.6,90,287/- i.e. a shortage of Rs.16,554/- than shown in the FD receipt. The complainant requested the opposite party to act as per the terms of the FD receipt, but the opposite party represented that the bank is guided by some methods of calculation and the money is not to be taken from his home. But due to emergent need of money the complainant was compelled to encash the FD on the same day with protest. The action of opposite party is not at all justifiable and amounts to deficiency of service. So the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding him to receive Rs.16, 554/- by keeping up the promise in the FD receipt, but opposite party issued a reply stating frivolous things. According to opposite party an error has been kept in the tabulation of interest and the same was caused due to the difference in the interest rate. But it is against the interest rate shown in the FD. The complainant encahsed FD receipt on 28.8.06 and he has suffered a loss of Rs.16, 654/- and its interest with 7% ie.Rs.1,556/-. So the opposite party is liable to pay the above said amount with Rs.15, 000/- as compensation. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum the opposite arty appeared and filed their version. The opposite party denied the allegations that he had offered Rs.7,06,841/-, if the complainant deposited Rs.6,00,000/- for 3 year, and the opposite party told the complainant that the money is not to be taken from his home and the further allegation that the complainant encahsed the FD with protest etc. According to opposite arty, they receive communication from the bank’s foreign department, Ernakulam that changes in rate of interest and some times such communications are received after the effective date, changing the ate of interest retrospectively and on receiving such communication the same is exhibited in the opposite party’s notice board and changes are effected in the system to take effect retrospectively. In this case also opposite party received a communication reducing the rate of interest from 5.5 to4.7% subsequent to handing over the FD receipt to the complainant. Due to reduction of interest rate to 4.7% in the system. Subsequently the value stood reduced to Rs.6, 90,287/-. I.e. less Rs.16, 554 than the amount quoted in the FD receipt. As per practice the change in rate of interest we displayed in the notice board and the matter was also communicated to the complainant at that time. Where the party made complaint, the matter was taken up with circle office of opposite party and they confirmed that only reduced amount can be paid. The complainant is an NRI customer and the rate of interest on NRI deposit is strictly governed by RBI regulation. The foreign exchange management act is applicable to NRE deposits and the rate was revised by RBI with effect from 17.7.03 from 5.5% to 4.7%. So opposite party has no discretion to pay more interest on NRI deposits. So the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as balance and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B8. Issue Nos.1 to 3 The relevant facts are that the complainant had deposited in FD a sum of Rs. 6, 00,000/- with opposite party for a period of 3 years. But he was not ready to release the matured amount as per FD receipt by saying that the RBI has reduced the rate of interest from 5.5% to 4.7%. The opposite party admitted these facts. But according to opposite party the complainant had deposited the amount with them on 18.7.03 as per the original of Ext.A1 i.e. the FD receipt and they agreed to pay Rs.7, 06,841/- after 3 years. But on 17.7.03 the RBI has reduced the interest of NRI’s deposit for 3 years from 5.5% to 4.7% as per Ext.B7. But the complainant had withdrawn the matured FD i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- on 25.8.06 with 4.7% interest which amounts to Rs.6,90,287/- with protest that he is entitled to receive Rs.16,554/- more as per the FD instrument and the photocopy of that protest letter also produced as Ext.A4. The complainant contended that he has no knowledge about the fluctuation of rate of interest and the bank has not informed him the same also. The bank contended that they informed him the same, but has not produced any document to prove that they had already informed the complainant about the reduction of rate of interest. Moreover the bank has not informed the complainant that the rate of interest of 5.5% is subjected to fluctuation as directed by the RBI form time to time. Moreover the DW1 who is the Manger of opposite party, bank deposed that deposit kzo-I-cn-¡p-¶-Xnsâ terms and conditions F.D. ReceiptÂD-m-Ip-T. Consumer¡v available Bbn-«p-ff information FD receiptBWv.AXv {]Im-c-T-A¶v \nÝ-bn¨ maturity amount which includes interest Rs.7, 06,841/-BWv. Maturity amount Bbn Cu XpI sImSp-¡m³ _m[-y-Ø-\mWv. According to opposite party the RBI has issued a circular dt.176.7.03 but either the bank or the complainant has no information about the circular at the time of issuing the FD receipt, Ext.A1. The DW1 further deposed that rate of interest fluctuation h¶Xv bank sâ internal circular B1{]Im-cT 18.7.03\mWv.. Deposit sNbvX Znh-k-amWv circular issue sNbvX-Xv. Banksâ notice board C«-Xm-bn-Im-Wp-¶nà . A1s\¡p-dn-N-¡Nv XÀ¡-an-Ã.FD receipt ]d-ªXv normally accrued maturity bmWv. AXn hà hy-X-ym-k-hp-ap-s-¦n IÌ-a-sd-A-dn-bn-¡m³ _m[-y-Ø-cm-Wv.-AXp Unt¸m-kn-ävk-zo-I-cn-¡p-T-t]mÄ Xs¶ And-bn-¡-WT F¶-Xvi-cn-bm-Wv.B ka-b¯v subject to fluctuation F¶v And-bn-¨-Xmbn ImWp-¶nà . So from the above evidence it is clear that the bank had not informed the complaint about the reduction of interest rate or not even informed that the maturity amount is subjected to interest fluctuation. Above all in Abha Bhanthia & Anr. Vs. Chief Manger, State Bank of India, the Chathisgarh State Disputes Redressal Commission held that lesser interest paid on the basis of directive of RBI. Direction would not render agreement between parties for payment of interest and void and Bank under liability to pay interest and omission or in advertise on the part of the bank employee would not adversely affect the right of depositor. So bank is liable to pay the amount mentioned in FDR. In the above case the facts of the case is also same as the case in hand. More over the RBI directive was an internal administration circular and the bank has failed and neglects to intimate the same to the complainant. The DW1 admits that at the time of issuing FD receipt the complainant has no knowledge about the RBI’s direction or not informed that the maturity amount in FD is. Subject to rate of interest fluctuation. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to receive the balance amount as per FD receipt of. Rs.16, 554/- along with 5% interest from the date on which the complainant withdrawn the FD ie. 25.8.06 till the date of realization with a cost of Rs.500/-. So the opposite party is liable to pay the above said amount t the complainant and the order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.16, 554/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand five hundred and fifty four only) along with 5% interest from 25.8.06 till the date of realization with Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A12.copy of the deposit receipt issued by OP A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A3.Reply notice A4.Copy of the letter dt.25.8.06 sent to OP A5.Letter dt.18.7.06 issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Copy of the circular No.55/03 issued from OP’s Head office to OP B2.Copy of the circular No.285/03 dt.22.12.03 issued by Planning & Development wing, Bangalore B3.Coipy of general power of attorney granted in favour of Mohanan Koroth B4.Copyf the certificate issued by OP B5.Copy of identity card of Mohanan Koroth B6.Account opening form for NRI submitted by complainant B7.Copy of the interest rate on deposits under non-resident B8.Copy of revision of interest rates on NRE term deposits Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Mohanan Koroth /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
