KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 118/2014
JUDGMENT DATED: 13.06.2014
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Pudukkad, Thrissur.
R/through-The Chief Manager, : APPELLANT
Punjab National Bank,
Medical College Branch, TVPM.
(By Adv: Sri.R.S.Mohanan Nair)
Vs.
Raju.M.P, S/o M.R.Poulose,
Maniyakku House, : RESPONDENT
P.O.Pudukkad, Thrissur.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.91/10 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, December 02, 2013 directing the opposite party to pay Rs.14,641/- and a cost of Rs.750/-.
The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief are these:-
2. Complainant deposited Rs.15,535/- in Nedungadi Bank on July 21, 1999 by fixed deposit receipt No. 46/99-2000. It matured in July 1999 and maturity value was Rs.48,273/-. Meanwhile Nedungadi Bank was amalgamated with the appellant/opposite party, Punjab National Bank. Opposite party gave only Rs.33,632/-. Therefore complainant filed the complaint for obtaining the balance amount.
3. The opposite party is Punjab National Bank, Pudukkad Branch represented by its Manager. He in his version contended thus:- Nedungadi Bank was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank. As per sub section 45 of Banking Regulation Act 10/1949, the Reserve Bank of India has submitted to the Government of India a scheme for amalgamation which was approved by the Central Government from 1.2.2003 onwards Nedungadi Bank was not in existence. Therefore from that date onwards all transactions will be governed by the rules and regulations of Punjab National Bank. It is admitted that complainant deposited Rs.15,535/- on 21.7.2009 for 10 years. The interest agreed was 11.5% and maturity value was Rs.48,273/-. But opposite party is bound to pay interest as prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. That being so the complaint has to be dismissed.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on their side. On the side of the opposite party RW1 was examined and Exts.R1 to R3 were marked before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that opposite party is bound to pay interest at the agreed rate and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.14,641/- being the balance amount to be paid to the complainant with interest and a cost of Rs.750/-. Opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the appellant.
6. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
7. It is admitted that complainant deposited Rs.15,535/- with the then Negungadi Bank on July 21, 1999 by fixed deposit receipt Ext.P1 and that the maturity value of the same was Rs.48,273/-. It is also not disputed that Nedungadi Bank amalgamated with the appellant Bank ie Punjab National Bank and that they paid only Rs.32,738/-.
8. The case of the opposite party bank is that as on 1.2.2003 onwards Nedungadi Bank was not in existence and that they can pay interest only at the rate prevailing in their bank. They have calculated interest at the rate of 11.5% till the date of amalgamation and there after at 6%. According to them the promise given by the Nedungadi Bank is not binding on them.
9. We find no merit in the above contention of the appellant. Ext.R1 is the copy of the amalgamation scheme 2003. But the terms and conditions of the same are not binding on the consumers as they are not parties to the agreement. The amalgamated bank is bound to pay the amounts offered by the transferor bank. RW1, the Bank Manager has admitted in the cross examination that consent letters were not obtained by the customers. Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in holding that complainant is entitled to the entire amount due under fixed deposit receipt, Ext.P1 ie Rs.48273/-. The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.
10. The Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.14,641/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and a cost of Rs.750/-. We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
VL.
