Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

336/2011

V.Ramasubramanian - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Premalatha

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 10.11.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.03.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP.                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.336/2011

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

                               

V. Ramasubramanian,

S/o. Mr. L. Visvanathan,

No.190/4, Sankara Apartments,

Lake View Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                       .. Complainant.                                               

..Versus..

 

1. State Bank of India,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

No.44, Mahadevan Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.

 

2. State Bank of India,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Local Head Office,

Circle Top House,

No.16, College Lane,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

          

Counsel for the complainant        :  Mrs. N. Premalatha

Counsel for the Opposite parties :  M/s. S. Mahesh

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to restore the deposit and treat it as continuing till date with the current applicable interest rate for such term deposits and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he invested a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit in the opposite parties bank, West Mambalam Branch on 24.02.2007 for 4 years with interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a.  The maturity date is 24.02.2011.  The maturity value is Rs.4,36,271/-.  The complainant submits that the said Fixed Deposit was made by the complainant in person and no application for opening the Fixed Deposit was given.  There is no condition in the Fixed Deposit Receipt regarding foreclosure also.  The complainant submits that in order to meet the educational expenses of his son, the complainant was compelled to pre-close the above said Fixed Deposit on 18.01.2011 i.e. 37 days before the maturity date.    The complainant submits that he foreclosed the Fixed Deposit on 18.01.2011 under the good faith that he will get the principal and interest till 18.01.2011 as mentioned in the Fixed Deposit Receipt.  The complainant also, sent the Fixed Deposit Receipt through a messenger after duly a fixing the signature.  But the opposite parties unilaterally closed the Fixed Deposit with lower rate of interest and remitted a sum of Rs.3,90,164/- against the approximate amount of Rs.4,32,000/-. Immediately, the complainant contacted the Account Manager of the bank and explained the position over phone and requested for restoration of the Fixed Deposit and submitted a letter dated:18.01.2011.   But the Bank Manager failed to restore the Fixed Deposit.   Hence, the complainant issued a letter dated:03.02.2011 to the General Manager, State Bank of India, Nungambakkam. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dated:08.06.2011 to the Ombudsman.   There is no progress and the opposite party failed to restore the Fixed Deposit receipt.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

 2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that the Fixed Deposit of the complainant was matured on 24.02.2011.  The maturity value of the Fixed Deposit is Rs.4,36,271/-.  The complainant submitted a pre-closure letter citing his son’s education on 18.01.2011 and pre-closed the Fixed Deposit of the complainant on the relevant Reserve Bank of India guidelines.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party preclosed following prevalent RBI guidelines and proceeds were credited to the complainants’ savings account as per complainant request.    The opposite parties state that they had extended their co-operation in this regard preclosure following RBI guidelines only.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to restore the deposit and treat the deposit as a continuing one with the current rate of interest as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

        The complainant filed his written arguments.  The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and made an endorsement that the said proof affidavit may be taken into written argument.  Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The learned Counsel for the complainant would contend that admittedly, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit in the opposite parties bank, West Mambalam Branch on 24.02.2007 for 4 years with interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a.  The maturity date is 24.02.2011.  The maturity value is Rs.4,36,271/-.  Ex.A1 is the copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt.  Further the complainant contended that the said Fixed Deposit was made by the complainant in person and no application for opening the Fixed Deposit was given.  There is no condition in the Fixed Deposit Receipt regarding foreclosure also. 

6.     The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that in order to meet the educational expenses of his son, the complainant was compelled to pre-close the above said Fixed Deposit on 18.01.2011 as per Ex.A2  i.e. 37 days before the maturity date.  Further the complainant contended that he foreclosed the Fixed Deposit on 18.01.2011 under good faith that he will get the principal and interest till 18.01.2011 as mentioned in the Fixed Deposit Receipt.  The complainant also, sent the Fixed Deposit Receipt through a messenger after duly affixing his signature.  But the opposite parties unilaterally closed the Fixed Deposit with lower rate of interest and remitted a sum of Rs.3,90,164/- against the approximate amount of Rs.4,32,000/-.  Immediately, the complainant contacted the Account Manager of the bank and explained the position over phone and requested for restoration of the Fixed Deposit and submitted a letter as per Ex.A2.   Even after repeated persuasion and discussion, the Bank Manager failed to restore the Fixed Deposit.  Hence, the complainant issued a letter as per Ex.A3 to the General Manager, State Bank of India, Nungambakkam. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dated:08.06.2011 to the Ombudsman as per Ex.A4.  Since there is no progress and the opposite party failed to restore the Fixed Deposit receipt, the complainant was constrained to file this case. 

7.     The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that the arbitrary act of the opposite parties in deducting the interest unilaterally amounts to deficiency in service.  The guidelines filed by the opposite parties deserves no importance in this case because Ex.A1, Fixed Deposit Receipt shows no such conditions.  Equally, while applying for Fixed Deposit by the complainant, the opposite parties has not disclosed any such conditions.  The circular produced by the opposite parties related to the revision in the interest rate on Super Saver Term Deposit Scheme is also applicable only for a limited period from 24.02.2007 to 31.03.2007.   The Reserve Bank of India guidelines related to premature withdrawal of term deposit is also not applicable in this case because admittedly, the Fixed Deposit Receipt was taken in the year 2007.   The guidelines of the year 2010-2011 is absolutely silent regarding the date of deposit.   It will be applicable only in the deposits of the year 2010-2011 not the withdrawal of deposits.

8.     The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the Fixed Deposit of the complainant was matured on 24.02.2011.  The maturity value of the Fixed Deposit is Rs.4,36,271/-.  The complainant submitted a pre-closure letter citing his son’s education on 18.01.2011 and pre-closed the Fixed Deposit of the complainant on the relevant Reserve Bank of India guidelines as per Ex.A6.  Accordingly, the interest amount was substantially deducted.   But on a careful perusal of Reserve Bank of India guidelines, it is absolutely silent regarding the date of Fixed Deposit.  It is only with regard to premature withdrawal of Fixed Deposit whether such withdrawal as on the date of Reserve Bank of India guidelines or the withdrawal of Fixed Deposit is made quite early is also silent.  In this case, admittedly, the Fixed Deposit is of the year 2007 which matures in the year 2011.   The complainant has applied for foreclosure only 37 days prior to the maturity date for which, deduction of Rs.46,106/- was made by the opposite parties evenafter the request for redeposit immediately.  The basis for such deduction was also not explained by the opposite party in this Forum.  No document also produced.   The interest amount for 37 days on calculation is of Rs.3,182/-.  Therefore, the opposite party is entitled to deduct only a sum of Rs.3,182/- alone from the maturity value.   On the other hand the deduction of a sum of Rs.46,106/- from the maturity value is unsustainable.   The circular of the year 2007 and Reserve Bank of India guidelines of the year 2011 has not been specifically mentioned anything about the deduction such huge amount towards interest and its principle proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,395/- being the difference paid with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,395/- (Rupees Forty three thousand three hundred and ninety five only) being balance in maturity value to be paid and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of March 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT

 

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	24.02.2007	Copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt
Ex.A2	18.01.2011	Copy of letter addressed to the Branch Manager, SBI, West Mambalam, Chennai – Annexure – 1
Ex.A3	03.02.2011	Copy of letter addressed to the General Manager, SBI, Nungambakkam, Chennai – Annexure – 2
Ex.A4	08.06.2011	Copy of letter addressed to Banking Ombudsman, Chennai – Annexure – 3
Ex.A5	17.08.2011	Copy of letter received from Banking Ombudsman, Chennai – Annexure – 4
Ex.A6	09.04.2011	Copy of letter addressed to the General Manager, SBI, Nugambakkam, Chennai with details of Bank guidelines and references – Annexure – 5
Ex.A7	19.09.2011	Copy of final communication addressed to the Branch Manager, SBI, West Mambalam, Chennai – Annexure - 6
Ex.A8	28.01.2010	Copy of letter of the opposite party
Ex.A9	19.07.2010	Copy of statement of financial support
Ex.A10	09.12.2011	Copy of FDR

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT