FA.No.422/2005 against CD.No.584/2001 District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between-

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Balkampet Branch,

Hyderabad.

…Appellant/And

Sri Aged about 64 yrs. R/o.410, Potter Road,

Discplaints I.L. 60016,   2, U.S.A.

Rep. by his

Sri Hyderabad.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant         -     

Counsel for the Respondent     -      

QUORUM- THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI G. BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per

-------

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party, State Bank of India, against the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad dated 06.01.2005 in CD.No.584/2001 directing it to

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a non resident   The balance due in his account as on 05.05.2000 was Rs  While so, he learnt that the bank had unilaterally transferred a sum of Rs.3  He never informed the bank for transferring the said amount.  When he enquired with the opposite party on 08.04.2000, he was informed that the said amount was credited, on his oral instructions, which was not true.  He sustained a loss to a tune of Rs.1  Therefore, he prayed that the said amount be paid together with compensation and costs.

3.         The opposite party bank filed counter resisting the case.  However, it admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.3  On maturity he was entitled for an amount of Rs.4  It also admitted that the complainant is a non resident   It alleged that on the -oral instructions of the depositor- the said transfer was made.  In order to not to inconvenience him and he being a valued customer, such transfer was made.  Subsequently, the complainant withdrew Rs.55  On the instructions of the complainant, the STDR was cancelled, and as such he was not entitled to interest at 15 percent p.a.  The complainant taking advantage of non-submission of written application filed this case.  The balance lying in his Saving Bank account is only Rs  The complaint was barred by limitation, and therefore, prayed for dismissed of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed Exs.A.1, the Special Power of Attorney and Ex.A.2, the letter sent by him.  Opposite party filed Ex.B.1, copy of the account.  The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the question of crediting amount into another account on oral instructions cannot be countenanced.  It ought not to have transferred the amount, and therefore, granted an amount of Rs.1

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party, the   preferred this appeal contending that it has credited the amount, lying in STDR account of the complainant, to the joint savings account of the complainant and Sri   Subsequently an amount of Rs.55  This shows that the complainant has made oral request.  The complainant is not entitled to get higher rate of interest on the withdrawn amount of Rs.55  The STDR amount was credited to his Savings Bank account on 10.03.1998 at request and the complaint was filed on 14.06.2001, which is beyond limitation.  Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed.

6.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a non resident   It is also not in dispute that by 05.05.2000, the maturity value of the STDR amount was Rs.4  It is admitted by the very bank in its counter that it has transferred an amount of Rs.3  While the complainant submitted that he had never authorized the bank to transfer the amount from his STDR account to Savings Bank account,  the bank asserts that ‘on his oral instructions’, such a transfer was made.  We may point out here that no instructions/guidelines were filed by the bank to show that they were entitled to transfer the amount by way of oral instructions.  When the bank could not show that there were oral instructions, nor made a mention in Ex.B.1, ledger copy of account, it is too late a day to contend that on oral instructions, they have transferred the amount.

7.           It is also not in dispute that Savings Bank account carries interest at 4 percent per annum while the STDR account carries interest at 15 percent per annum.  Though the bank alleged that an amount of Rs.55  The bank could not have transferred amount from STDR account to the Savings Bank account to the detriment of the complainant’s interest unless there is some proof.  Undoubtedly, the complainant sustained loss of interest to a tune of Rs.1  Therefore, it could be considered as deficiency in service. 

8.         The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complaint was barred by limitation.  The credit was made on 10.03.1998, while the complaint was filed on 14.06.2001 and it was beyond three years.  We may state herein that the bank has admittedly credited this amount, clandestinely, without informing the complainant.  Since the complainant could know that the STDR amount was transferred to his Savings Bank account only in April, 2000 and when the complainant demanded the amount the bank even did not reply.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint was filed within time and it is not barred by limitation.             

9.         The District Forum has rightly awarded the amount to be returned to the complainant.  It did not award any interest to be paid on the said sum instead a sum of Rs.10  It adequately represents the loss sustained by him in this regard.  Therefore, we do not see any irregularity either in appreciation of facts of the case or law in this regard.

  10.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.   

PRESIDENT               MALE MEMBER

Dt-22.07.2008.