(Delivered on 04/12/2017)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The instant appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Nagpur in complaint  No. 260/2012 dated 31/01/2014 granting the complaint  partly as below.

a.      The opposite party (in short O.P.) to provide the difference of amount not paid  to the complainant  from  02/08/2003 to  05/02/2012 at the rate of 8% p.a.  to  pay it minus  Rs. 18,767/-  from  05/02/2012 at the rate of 9% p.a. till final payment  and then to pay Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment  and the cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

b.      The order to be complied  in the span of  one  month from the date of the order.

2.      The complainant herein filed a complaint  that her son had deposited             Rs. 40,000/- on  02/05/2000 with the O.P.  in fixed deposit at the rate of 10% p.a. till  02/08/2003. However,  her son got missing  in  the year 2002 and never returned.

3.      When the complainant  demanded  the maturity  amount  on  maturity she was asked to bring  the declaration from Civil Court about  civil death of her son to get the amount. Hence, she filed  a suit  for declaration of Civil  of her son as he  was missing  for  more than seven years.  He was declared dead by Civil Court in Civil Suit  vide No. 488/2011. She  submitted the decree about said declaration to O.P. & thereupon   O.P. gave her  the maturity  amount of  fixed deposit of Rs. 55,140/- and  the interest upon it  from maturity  till  final payment  at the rate of 4% p.a. totaling  to Rs. 18,767/-.

4.      The complainant filed a complaint  alleging  deficiency  in service  in as much as  that  the amount  of fixed deposit remained with the O.P.  unpaid  and hence,  the O.P. to  provide the maturity  amount  at the rate of interest of 10% p.a.  As  the amount is not paid  accordingly,  made a prayer  to direct the O.P.  to pay the maturity amount  of Rs. 55,140/-, with  compound interest at the rate of 10% p.a.  with  reinvestment  rule and then to provide her  Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost.

5.      On notice, the O.P. appeared  and countered the  complaint stating that the complainant was paid the  maturity amount of fixed deposit  of Rs. 55,140/- as on  02/08/2003 and then  after that  as the amount  remained with  O.P.  it was paid  with  interest at the rate of 4% p.a.  totaling  to  Rs. 18,767/- as per  the  Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Rules.  Hence, claimed  no deficiency in service.

6.      The learned Forum  held that  the  complainant filed the   decree dated 01/11/2011 of declaration about  civil death  of her son. She filed the claim to get the amount  from O.P.  on 31/01/2012, when she was paid  the total amount of  maturity and interest  of Rs. 73,907/- on 06/02/2012. The complainant finding  the amount less  gave a notice on 01/03/2012, which was replied by the O.P. on 07/03/2012.

7.      The  learned Forum relied on the model rules of  automatic renewal  of term deposit  in which it was  mentioned that in the event of fixed deposit  depositors  death  and claiming of amount  after the  maturity  the bank shall pay interest  upon the maturity  amount  unpaid till the  claim at the   simple   rate of interest applicable on the operative date of maturity.  However,  if the death of depositor take place after the  maturity  date  then  the bank shall pay the interest at the saving deposit   rate  on the date of maturity.

8.      The learned Forum considered that  when the  complainant   made a claim  on the date of maturity  it was not  paid to her but  she was told  to bring the decree of civil death from the Court and an entry that the amount  be not paid till 16/09/2009, is made  on the fixed  deposit receipt as per the direction of the R.M. Office. Thus  the  O.P. has  used the amount  from the day of maturity till its  final payment.  

9.      The Forum below further  observed that as  per the model  operational  procedure  of  Inter Office Memorandum dated 23/12/2006 of  Bank of India submitted by  the complainant and as  she has submitted her claim after the  maturity of the deposit  she should have been given  the simple rate  as was present  on the date of maturity.  However,  as  both the parties  have not submitted  the rate which  was  prevalent  on the date of maturity of the fixed deposit, the learned Forum held it  to be 8% p.a.  as convenient. Therefore, held  that the O.P.by paying  interest at the rate of 4% p.a. committed deficiency  in service  and hence,  passed the order supra.

10.    Aggrieved against the order the original  O.P.filed an appeal & hence, is referred as  appellant . Advocate  Smt. Smita Deshpande appeared  on its behalf.  Advocate  Mr. Meshram appeared on behalf of original  complainant, now referred as respondent.

11.    The advocate for the appellant submitted that  the appellant  had rightly asked   the respondent  to provide decree of civil  death of Tanaji to  get the maturity  amount submitted by the depositor. When she submitted  the same, she was paid  the amount  referred above with interest  at the rate of  saving  bank deposit  of Rs. 4% p.a. The action was taken as per the RBI directions. As the  maturity  amount  was never requested  to be reinvested  and it was not  reinvested.  Hence,  it is treated  to have been continued  as  saving bank deposit and  the  respondent  was appropriately paid  the total  account  when  she produced  the decree of Civil Court. However,  the learned Forum considered   some documents of  Bank of India  and applied it  as rule  to the  appellant’s procedure and passed unreasoned  order which deserves to be set aside.

12.    The advocate of the respondent on the other hand  submitted that  the model   code  submitted by the  respondents  is  a inter bank communication of  Bank of India which  is approved by the Reserve Bank of India.  Both  appellant  and Bank of India being  scheduled  banks of the government, the memorandum is applicable to  both of them. Hence, the learned  Forum was right in passing the order which needs to be maintained.

13.    We considered the contentions of both the parties and perused the evidence on record. We find that the original depositor-son of  the respondent  went missing  prior to  maturity of the deposit.  Hence,  the  appellant  was right  in asking for  the appropriate  decree from Court about civil death of the son of respondent  to get the  maturity  amount.  There is no evidence to show that the  respondent  had requested reinvestment  or redeposit  of the amount  till  its claim on  the  return  of her son.  She filed  the  declaration suit  itself in the year  2011 vide No. 488/2011 when the  amount  had matured  on 02/08/2003.

14.    We also find that  the circular  submitted by the  respondent is a  “Model  Operational  Procedure”  for settlement  of claims in respect of  deceased  depositors issued by the Chief Manager of  Bank of India as  inter office memorandum which is prepared  as a suggestion by  a working group. It says that  it is  informed  that the model operational procedure is approved by the Reserve Bank of India  and the same is sent  to the  Banks (including the appellant  also) for their information  and adoption.  It clearly shows that   the circular is not  concerned  with the operational  procedure  of the appellant  and  it is  also not certified  as an authority from the Reserve Bank of India, the Apex Bank.  Hence,  such  circular  being  model  in  form  and  given for adoption cannot be accepted  as a  stipulated  direction of the Apex Bank upon appellant  for its  observation in its  operation.

15.    The concerned suggestion in the above circular  also suggests  that  in the event of  death of depositor, the bank shall pay simple interest  prevalent an the date of maturity  if the amount  remains  with the bank beyond the date of maturity.

16.    We thus  find that  the respondent  approached  for the  decree  of declaration of civil death view of  missing  of her son in the year  2011, almost after  eight  years she did not make  any effort  to get the amount reinvested  in view of  the  missing  nature of her son. Therefore, there  can be no reason for her demand   of compound  interest upon the maturity  value of the deposit  when  it remained  so with the appellant  not  because of any its fault   upon it.

17.    We also find that the  appellant was right  in demanding proper  declaration  from competent court about  civil death for payment of  maturity  value and has paid the amount as per the rules prevalent  in the  operational  procedure  of the appellant. It cannot be compelled to act according  to  any  model suggestion prepared by some other  entity.

18.    The  appellant  therefore, appears to have paid the maturity  value  with proper calculation  and we find  no reason  to  interfere   in it and to call it a deficiency  in service.

19.    We find that  the learned Forum  committed error   in holding  un- concerned  circular of suggestion, applicable to  the  appellant  and also  decided  the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  with no relevance.  Thus passed  the erroneous  order without  analysing  the evidence  before it. Hence,  the order deserves  to be set aside.  

          For reasons recorded above, the order below.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is allowed.

ii.       The order of the Forum is set aside. In the event, the complaint stands dismissed.

iii.      Parties to bear their own cost.

iv.      Copy of order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.