STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 230 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 31.5.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 11.06.2013 |
Krishan Lal Sabharwal S/o Sh. Ram Chand Sabharwal, resident of House No.298, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/Complainant.
V e r s u s
1. State Bank of India through its General Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, SCO No.43-48, Sector 17B, Chandigarh
2. State Bank of India through its Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, NRI Branch SCO No.111-113, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Krishan Lal Sabharwal, appellant in person.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.4.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant.
2 The facts, in brief, are that the appellant-complainant, got an FDR (C-1) prepared from the opposite parties, for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 3.9.2008 at the interest rate of 10.5% per annum. He also got two more FDRs (C-2 & C-3) on 24.10.2008 prepared, one for Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of his wife, Mrs. Chander Prabha Sabharwal and another for Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of Mr. Jyoti Swarup Sabharwal his son. The complainant also opened an Over Draft (OD) account against his FDR made in September 2008 and a limit of Rs.8.00 lacs was permitted to him. It was stated that when the complainant visited the opposite parties, in October 2008 to open the OD account, he met the concerned official of the bank, who informed him that the rate of interest had been increased from 10% per annum to 10.5% per annum for a period of 1000 days. It was further stated that, as the complainant, and his wife were senior citizens, oral instructions, were given to the official to break all the existing FDRs and
re-issue new FDRs for 1000 days at the enhanced rate of interest i.e. 11% per annum and he, accordingly, collected the new FDRs in the name of his wife and son. As his own FDR was lying with the bank, as a security for the OD account, he remained under the bona fide belief that this FDR had also been prepared in terms of the oral instructions, given to the bank official. However, when the complainant visited the bank in May 2010, for handing over Form 15H, he asked for a copy of his OD account. The complainant again visited the bank in April 2011, to hand over Form 15H, when he was informed by the bank official that TDS of Rs.10,587/- had been deducted, for the previous year i.e. 2010-11. It was further stated that later on the bank official informed him telephonically that though the details of Form 15H and PAN No. were available, in the system but the TDS had been inadvertently deducted. When the complainant again visited the bank on 10.10.2011, he was informed that as the FDR had already matured on 2.8.2010, the same had been extended for 500 days at 6.5% per annum which was the prevailing rate of interest on that date, whereas, the FDR of his wife which matured on 21.7.2011 had been extended @ 9.75% per annum. It was further stated that the complainant made payment of Rs.8.00 lacs in 2010 from his OD account against shares account with IDBI Bank @12% per annum interest. It was further stated that had he been made aware of the expiry or extension of his FD@6.5% per annum by the bank, he would have utilized this amount and not suffered loss paying a higher interest to IDBI. It was further stated that the bank only mentioned one entry of Rs.10,587/- in from 16A, whereas, another sum of Rs.8,339/- had also been deducted, for the financial year 2010-11, and the complainant due to the negligence of the bank, could not claim the benefit of this amount in his income tax return. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3 The Opposite Parties, filed their joint reply wherein, it was stated that the mode of two FDRs, the automatic extension of periods, TDS deductions and rate of interest deductions on pre-mature encashments are applicable as per the provisions made, guidelines issued and the terms and conditions settled by the competent authority in accordance with the instructions of the RBI and Government of India. It was further stated that the complainant had got his FDR made for Rs.10.00 lacs for 555 days on 2.9.2008, at the rate of 10.50% per annum. It was further stated that the complainant also availed of an over draft limit on 20.9.2008 to the extent of Rs.8.00 lacs. In case the complainant wanted to get the benefit of enhanced rate of interest of 1000 days, as was done in relation to his wife and son on their respective FDRs, he was required to give his request in writing for pre-mature payment after adjusting the over draft amount for the further period of 1000 days. It was further stated that he was required to again apply for over draft limit on the new/ fresh FDR. As per the banking norms if any over draft is taken by a customer, by pledging the FDR as security, the bank shall charge 1% higher rate of interest than paid by the bank to its customers on the FDR. Therefore, even if the complainant had got the FDR for 1000 days, he would have to pay 1% extra rate of interest for the over draft taken by him. It was further stated that all these things were virtually explained to the complainant. It was further stated that the over draft limit was provided to the complainant as per his own requirements against security of his FDR. It was further stated that, in the absence of any specific instructions, from the complainant, his own FDR could not be re-issued. It was further stated that Form 15H was duly put, on record, as and when made available. Due to technical reasons the system did not recognize the flag because the customer identification folio was in another branch. As the system did not recognize the flag, tax was deducted. Subsequently, Form 16 was provided to the complainant for Rs.8,339/-. It was further stated that the complainant could approach the Income Tax Department seeking the benefit, on the basis of Form 16 provided to him. It was further stated that existing FDRs were automatically renewed, for similar period, at the rate of interest applicable, on the date of renewal, as per extant norms, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4 The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5 After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order.
6 Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7 We have heard the appellant in person at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8 The appellant-complainant submitted that the impugned order of the District Forum is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and hence liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the Forum did not go through the pleadings of the complainant carefully. It was further submitted that he suffered monetary loss of over Rs.70,000/- on account of non-renewal of his FDR at higher rate of interest on account of unfair trade practice and manipulation of record. It was further submitted that despite giving directions and authorization for renewing the FDR at a higher rate of interest, the respondent-Bank did not deliberately renew the same and continued the same at the earlier rate of interest i.e. 6.5% per annum. It was further submitted that had the bank informed him, the appellant would have exercised the option to withdraw the amount from it and discharged his loan liability availed of from the IDBI Bank @12% per annum as well as overdraft taken against shares on the same rate. It was further submitted that on closing the FD account, he had been penalized to the extent of an amount of Rs.15,780/- which was totally unfair and unjustified irrespective of any rule. It was further submitted that as per the guidelines dated 01.07.2011 issued by the RBI No.13/54, it was obligatory on the part of the Bank to make the appellant aware of the applicable rate of interest alongwith deposit rate. It was further submitted that it was a settled proposition of law, that failure to communicate any change, to the customer, amounts to a clear cut deficiency in service. It was further submitted that on account of unfair trade practice, being committed by the respondent-Bank, the complainant suffered monetary loss, and severe physical and mental harassment. It was further submitted that the District Forum has erred in not properly appreciating the aforesaid documentary evidence brought, on record, by the appellant. He also submitted that the District Forum also erred in holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9 The first question, that arises for determination, is as to whether the FDRs of complainant’s wife and son were broken and reissued on the basis of oral instructions to the Opposite Parties. While the assertion of the appellant-complainant is without any supporting evidence, the Opposite Parties have categorically averred that the FDRs were reissued on the written instructions of the appellant-complainant. It is an accepted norm and practice of the Bank that all transactions are carried out, on the written instructions, or else endorsements by the customers/beneficiaries. It is clearly evident from the letter dated 3.11.2011 (Annexure C-10) of the Opposite Parties, that the FDR of Mrs. Chander Prabha Sabharwal was reissued for 1000 days w.e.f. 24.10.2008, as per the signed instructions of the depositor, whereas, no such instructions were found regarding FDR No.30475884280. It is also clearly evident from para 4 of Annexure C-10 that the fixed deposits held with the Bank are automatically renewed for similar period, on the rate of interest, as applicable at the date of renewal as per extant norms (terms also printed on the reverse of each TDR advice). Thus, it is held that the FDRs of the wife and son of the complainant were not reissued on the oral instructions of the depositors. These were reissued on written instructions of the depositors.
10 Secondly, in the instant case, the FDR regarding the reissuance whereof, the complainant has raised dispute was security against overdraft account, with the Opposite Parties. When the appellant-complainant did not impart any written instructions, to the Opposite Parties, the question of reissuing the FDR at enhanced rate did not arise. In the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant-complainant, regarding any written instructions having been issued to the Opposite Parties, no lapse/deficiency can be attributed to the respondents/Opposite Parties.
11 In the instant case, the FDR which was security against the overdraft limit carried 6.5% per annum interest and utilization of money, from the overdraft account carried 1% more interest i.e. 7.5% per annum. Even if the FDR had been reissued at enhanced rate i.e.10.5% per annum, the Bank would have charged 11.5% per annum interest. Payment of higher rate of interest by the appellant to IDBI, is an entirely separate and distinct issue, and the same has no relation, whatsoever, with FDR of the complainant with the Opposite Parties. The argument that the appellant-complainant utilized only 2 to 4 lacs is also irrelevant.
12 Penalty of Rs.15780/- by the respondent-Bank on closure of the account pre-maturely was nevertheless in accordance with the terms and conditions in such cases. The appellant-complainant failed to bring on record any rule or provision of the Opposite Parties under which such a penalty was not leviable. In the circumstances and facts available on record, it has to be assumed that such a penalty was rightly imposed and there could be no escape.
13 As regards non showing of TDS deduction of an amount of Rs.8,339/-, in Form 16-A, the Opposite Parties admitted that it happened due to technical fault in the system of the bank. Subsequently such mistake, which had occurred due to technical fault in the system, was rectified by issuing Form 16-A. Such technical fault in the system, was not the creation of the officials of the Opposite Parties. Such technical fault or clerical mistake, did not amount to deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties.
14 No other point, was urged, by the appellant.
15 In view of the discussion aforesaid, we find no force in the appeal. The order, passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum, is upheld.
17 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion
Pronounced.
11th June 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.230 of 2013)
Argued by: Sh. Krishan Lal Sabharwal, appellant in person.
Dated the 11th day of June, 2013
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
DEV RAJ MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
