Haryana

StateCommission

A/631/2016

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARKET COMMITTEE THANESAR - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No:    631 of 2016

First Appeal No.993 of 2003

Date of Institituion:27.05.2003/11.07.2016

Date of Decision: 26.09.2016

 

Union Bank of India Kurukshetra Branch, through its Branch Manager, Subhash Mandi, Kurukshetra.

                                      Applicant/Appellant/OP No.1

Versus

 

1.      Market Committee, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through its Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Union Bank of India, Head Office, through its Chairman, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Bombay.

3.      Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2&3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ajay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.              

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Undisputed facts of the present case are that Market Committee, Thanesar-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was having savings bank account No.1237 with Union Bank of India Kurukshetra-Opposite Party No.3/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank’).  The bank did not pay interest on the deposits made by the complainant in the said account, since November, 1989 onwards. The complainant filed Complaint No.45 of 1996 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’). The opposite parties, that is, the applicant/opposite party No.1 and respondents/opposite parties No.2 and 3 contested the complaint.

2.                The District Forum, vide order dated 8^th April, 2003, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties as under:-

“……we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay interest on the saving bank account No.1237 of complainant w.e.f. November 1989 according to the rate prevailing from time to time. We further direct the Ops to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of interest from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 6.1.1996 till the date of payment and pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant up to date according to the rate prevailing from time to time. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”    

3.                The appellant bank filed appeal No.993 of 2003 before this Commission. Since, the appellant did not deposit statutory amount, so the appeal was dismissed vide order dated June 5^th, 2006 observing as under:-

“In view of the position explained above and because of the fact that the requisite amount has not been deposited in this case by the appellant, we have been left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal. We order accordingly.”   

4.                The appellant filed Revision Petition No.3082 of 2006 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Revision Petition was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate application before the State Commission. Pursuance thereto, the appellant filed application No.119 of 2015 before this Commission seeking permission to deposit the statutory amount. That application was dismissed vide order dated 3^rd November, 2015. In Revision Petition No.324 of 2016 before Hon’ble National Commission, the case was remanded to this Commission with the observation that the appellant can deposit the amount with further observation that the State Commission may verify if other banks are paying interest on savings bank account opened by other institutions and if required by calling the officials from Reserve Bank of India.

5.                The complainant has placed instruction circular on the file that the other banks are paying interest on the savings bank account. Nothing contrary to the instructions have been brought to our notice prohibiting the payment of interest on savings bank account opened by institutions. Therefore, under normal banking practice, if the banks pay interest to savings bank account holders; certainly they cannot deny the payment of interest to complainant and undoubtedly crores of rupees belonging to institutions have been deposited with the banks in savings bank account. Besides, other banks are paying interest as per the circular dated 22^nd May, 1982 produced by the complainant-respondent. Moreover, the banks are utilizing the amount of savings bank account holders for the purpose of their bank business of advancing loans and earning interest thereon. Therefore, even under this analogy, the bank is liable to pay interest to the complainant on the savings bank account prevalent at the relevant time.

6.                In view of the above, the impugned order is modified with the direction that the bank shall pay interest to the complainant at the prevalent rate at the relevant times from time to time on savings bank account, as notified by Reserve Bank of India.

 

Announced 26.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL