PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

          Respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in a Fixed Deposit Scheme for a period of two months at 6½% rate of interest p.a. with the Co-operative Bank, Kurud – petitioner/opposite party No.2 on 4.5.1998.  On maturity, the said deposit entitled him a sum of Rs.50,542/-.  Respondent/complainant withdrew the interest amount of Rs.542/- but renewed the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- in another fixed deposit @ 12% p.a. on 9.7.1998 for a period of six years.  When this fixed deposit matured after six years during July 2004,  he was paid a total sum of Rs.86,000/-.  Alleging that he had intended to invest his principal amount of Rs.50,000/- in the double deposit scheme under which invested amount gets a 100% enhancement and, therefore, he was entitled to Rs.1,00,604/- ;  he filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

The District Forum on analysis of the evidence and after considering the contentions raised before it by both the sides, dismissed the compliant.  Aggrieved there upon, the respondent/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh, Raipur who vide the order impugned set aside the order of the District Forum and held the petitioner/opposite parties liable for deficiency in service and have ordered them to pay an additional amount  of  Rs.14,604/- along  with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint.

Dissatisfied with this order of the State Commission, the petitioner/opposite parties have filed this revision petition.

Referring to the reasoning given by the State Commission in its order that when two schemes were available to a depositor, in all fairness the opposite parties being a public institution were expected to point out both the options to the depositor so that he could make a choice of the scheme beneficial to him ; since no prudent person would opt for a scheme fetching lesser returns if both the schemes are on similar footing, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner/opposite parties having failed to deposit the amount in the double deposit scheme have clearly been deficient in service.  The state Commission, the counsel contends has rightly rejected the logic of the petitioner/opposite parties that the respondent/complainant renewed his earlier deposit under the fixed deposit scheme.

Learned counsel has further contended that the endorsement of Rs.86,000/- being the maturity amount appearing on the reverse side of the fixed deposit receipt dated 9.7.1998 was made only after six years when the complainant approached the petitioner/opposite parties for receiving the maturity amount and, therefore the contentions of the petitioners that the complainant was aware of the proceeds/benefit under the scheme from the beginning is misplaced.  He has, therefore, submitted that there being nothing illegal or wrong in the order of the State Commission, the same be maintained.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite parties has submitted that the respondent/complainant being an educated Govt. employee had first invested his saving in the fixed deposit @ 6 ½ % p.a. but for two months only. On its maturity, as is evident from the records, he collected only the interest amount of Rs.542/- in cash and endorsed the earlier deposit receipt of Rs.50,000/- for renewal but for a longer period of six years to earn interest @ 12% p.a.  A fresh fixed deposit receipt dated 9.7.1998 was issued with the maturity date as 9.7.2004 indicating also the maturity value of Rs.86,000/-.  This amount already stands paid to the respondent/complainant which he has accepted without any reservation.  The contention of the respondent/complainant that he had intended to place his deposit in a double deposit scheme cannot be sustained since the respondent/complainant has renewed his deposit with open eyes and the State Commission was, therefore, totally wrong to hold that the petitioners were deficient in rendering proper service.  The State Commission has erroneously awarded the amount of Rs.14,604/- which is based on an erroneous presumption that there were schemes and it was the responsibility of the petitioner/opposite parties to advise the respondent/complainant to deposit his investment in the double deposit scheme.  The order passed by the State Commission being illegal and beyond jurisdiction, the counsel submits that the same be set aside.

On perusal of the records and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully considered the dispute in question.

In our view, the respondent/complainant being an educated person and also having served in the Govt., could hardly be accepted to be so naive as not  to understand the difference between the double deposit scheme and a fixed deposit scheme.  In this case, while it has not been proved that there, indeed, was a double deposit scheme, it is seen that the respondent/complainant had first invested his saving in a fixed deposit for two months @ 6 ½ % rate of interest p.a.  He opted to collect only the interest thereof and place the principal amount for renewal for the fixed deposit for a period of six years.  This is evident from the fixed deposit receipt dated 9.7.1998 at page 28 of the paper book. This FDR clearly states the amount of Rs.50,000/- for six years @ 12% p.a. rate of interest.  On the reverse of this FDR, the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and interest of Rs.36,000/- and the total value of Rs.86,000/- at the time of maturity has been clearly stated.  Since, this FDR was with the respondent/complainant ever since July 1998 and it states the rate of interest @ 12%, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that the endorsement on the reverse of this FDR was made at the time of payment will not support his contention. 

We are not able to sustain the view expressed by the State Commission that the endorsement of renewal for six years made by the respondent/complainant on the reverse of the earlier FDR was a simple instructions for renewal.  The word ‘renewal’ on this very document, cannot but mean that it was an instruction ‘to extend’ the period of validity under the scheme.  Had it been, otherwise, it was for the respondent/complainant to be so specific.  The State Commission, therefore was clearly in the wrong to hold the petitioner/opposite parties liable, irrespective of whether there was another scheme of double deposit.  A fixed deposit receipt is in the nature of a contract between the depositor and the Bank and the parties are bound by the terms contained in the FDR.  The State Commission  has ignored the well established dictum that the parties are bound by the terms of a contract and the Consumer Forum has no authority to interpret the terms in a manner so as to give a different meaning and amend the provisions of the contract.  The comment of the State Commission that the opposite parties deposited the amount in the fixed deposit scheme to the clear disadvantage of the complainant, in our view is totally misplaced. The order passed by the State Commission being illegal and beyond jurisdiction is set aside and the revision petition is allowed, however with no order as to cost.

…………………………J

(B.N.P. SINGH)

PRESIDING MEMBER

   .....…………………………

(S.K. NAIK)

 MEMBER

St/20