Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/234/2014

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.R. CHANDRASEKARAN - Opp.Party(s)

S. NATARAJAN

18 Feb 2022

ORDER

 IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. Nos. 60 and 234 of 2014

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.9/2011 dated 08.10.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Chennai (South).

 

Friday, the 18^th day of February 2022

 

F.A. No. 60 of 2014

The Manager

Bajaj Capital Ltd.,

19, Wellington Plaza

No.90, Anna Salai

Chennai – 600 002.                                        .. Appellant /Second Opposite party

 

- Vs –

 

1.  Mr. T.R. Chandrasekaran

 

2.  Mrs. Bhavani Chandrasekaran

      Both residing at

      A-12/3, ‘Sudharma’,

      23^rd Cross Street, Besant Nagar

      Chennai – 600 090.                                 ..  Respondents 1 & 2/ Complainants

 

 

3.  The Managing Director

     National Housing Bank

     H.O.- Core 5 (A) 3^rd Floor

     India Habited Centre

     Lodi Road, New Delhi- 110 003.             ..3^rd Respondent /First Opposite party

 

F.A. No. 234 of 2014

The Managing Director

National Housing Bank

H.O.- Core 5 (A) 3^rd Floor

India Habited Centre

Lodi Road, New Delhi- 110 003.                       .. Appellant/ First Opposite party

 

 

- Vs –

1.  Mr. T.R. Chandrasekaran

 

2.  Mrs. Bhavani Chandrasekaran

      Both residing at

      A-12/3, ‘Sudharma’,

      23^rd Cross Street, Besant Nagar

      Chennai – 600 090.                                 ..  Respondents 1 & 2/ Complainants

 

 

3.  The Manager

     Bajaj Capital Ltd.,

     19, Wellington Plaza

     No.90, Anna Salai

     Chennai – 600 002.                                   ..  3^rd Respondent /

                                                                                      Second Opposite party

 

 

Counsel for Appellant in F.A.No.60/2014 and

3^rd Respondent in F.A.No.234/2014                         : M/s. Prakash Adiapadam

 

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 and

Complainants in F.A.No. 60 & 234 of 2014               : M/s. Dr.P. Vasudevan

 

Counsel for Appellant in F.A.No.234/2014 and

3^rd Respondent in F.A.No.60/2014                           : M/s. Manoj Sreevatsan

                                                                            

These appeals are coming before us for final hearing on 29.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        These two separate Appeals have been filed by the Opposite Parties        1 and 2 respectively, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2013 made in C.C. No.9 of 2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), allowing the complaint filed by the Complainants.

 

2.  For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred as per their rankings before the District Forum i.e., the 1^st and 2^nd respondents in both the appeals will be referred as complainants, the Appellant in F.A.NO.234/2014 namely, the National Housing Bank will be referred as First Opposite Party and the Appellant in F.A.No.60/2014 namely, Bajaj Capital Ltd., will be referred as the Second Opposite Party.

 

3.   The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that the first opposite party, National Housing Bank, offered a Fixed Deposit scheme by name “Sunidhi Term Deposit”, which is for a period of two years and offered an interest at the rate of 11% per annum.  The second opposite party, Bajaj Capital Limited, was a duly authorised agent of the first opposite party.  The complainants had submitted an application for investment of Rs.1,00,000/- in the said “Sunidhi Term Deposit” for a period of two years at the office of the second opposite party at Adyar, Chennai on 12.01.2009.  Along with the Application for the fixed deposit, a cheque bearing No.164277 dated 12.01.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, drawn on HDFC Bank Limited,             R.A. Puram Branch, Chennai-28, in favour of the first opposite party was duly handed over to the second opposite party at their Adyar Branch office at about 11.00 a.m., with a specific condition and understanding that “Sunidhi Term Deposit” will be effective with an interest at the rate of 11% p.a., before 15^th January 2009.  Inspite of the specific undertaking given by the second opposite party, who acted as an agent of the first opposite party, both the opposite parties have acted negligently and the said cheque was debited from the Savings Bank Account of the complainants only on 17^th January 2009 and the said amount was realised by the first opposite party.   Whileso, to the shock and surprise, on 20^th January 2009, the second opposite party Bajaj Capital Limited  informed the complainants that interest rate of 11% was not applicable due to the reduction of interest rates by the first opposite party National Housing Bank, with effect from 16^th January 2009.  Only due to the inaction on the part of the second opposite party, while acting as an agent for the first opposite party, the cheque was debited from the bank account of the complainants only on 17^th January 2009.  Due to the negligent attitude of the opposite parties the complainants had lost the opportunity to invest their hard earned money in the contemplated “Sunidhi Term Deposit” for the interest rate of 11% p.a. and that too for no fault on the part of the complainants.  They were made to go from pillar to post to get the refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the first opposite party and only after tiring efforts, the complainants received the refund amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the first opposite party on 12^th February 2009.   Hence, the complainant has issued a legal notice dated 21^st May 2009, calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony caused due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.904/- towards interest for the period between 12.01.2009 to 12.02.2009 and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for losing the opportunity for the well secured investment at a reasonably good rate of interest.   The opposite party had sent a reply to the notice, simply denying the allegation.  Hence, there is clear deficiency of service, which had caused great mental agony, inconvenience and hardship to the complainants by the opposite parties.  Therefore, they have come forward with the present complaint  for the following reliefs:-

1. to pay a sum of Rs.904/- towards the interest for the period between 12.01.2009 to 12.02.2009 on the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties,
3. to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for losing the opportunity for a well secured investment at a reasonably good rate of interest.
4. to pay costs of the proceedings.

 

4.  The said complaint was resisted by the first opposite party by filing a version stating that a Complaint cannot be filed before the Consumer Forum since Clause 16 of “Sunidhi Term Deposit” scheme, under which deposit was made by the complainants clearly provides that any dispute or claim arising from acceptance, renewal or payment of deposits including interest under the Scheme will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at New Delhi only.   Further, the complainants have no locus standi to come before the Consumer Forum as they are not ‘consumers’ in terms of the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Even on the facts of the case there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore, no consumer dispute arises.  The complainants had applied under the Savings Scheme on 12.01.2009 through the second opposite party for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of two years, at an interest of 11% per annum.  The second opposite party had deposited the cheque in the Bank on the very next day for clearing i.e., on 13.01.2009.  The Banks were closed in Chennai on 14^th January 2009 due to Pongal, 15^th January was Thiruvalluvar’s Day and 16^th January due to Uzhavar Thirunal festival.  Consequently, the cheque was realised on 17^th January 2009. In the meantime, the rate of interest was reduced to 9.25% per annum, with effect from 16^th January 2009.  The interest begins to accrue from the date of realisation of the cheque and accordingly the rate application on 17^th January 2009, namely, 9.25% was made applicable to the said deposit.  On 20^th January 2009 the complainants were informed about the date of realisation of the cheque and the rate of interest applicable on that date.  On 21^st January 2009, the complainants requested the first opposite party to return the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- by means of cheque drawn in their favour.  The request was forwarded by the second opposite party on 23.01.2009 to the first opposite party.  On receipt of the said letter, the first opposite party informed its Registrar at Mumbai office to retrieve the original application.   The Registrar vide letter dated 02.02.2009 forwarded the original application form sourced by the second opposite party for refund to depositors.  After due verification of the application the first opposite party instructed the IDBI Bank to issue a Demand Draft in favour of the complainants on 09.02.2009.  An Advocate Notice sent by the complainants dated 21.05.2009, was received by the first opposite party and the same was replied on 12.06.2009 stating that the withdrawal of the deposit amount had resulted in pre-mature withdrawal of deposit and hence the amount is refunded without any interest to the depositor, in accordance with the scheme.  As per Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the said scheme, no interest will be paid on the pre-mature withdrawal of deposit before six months.  Therefore, there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party.

 

5.  The second opposite party has also filed a written statement on the line of the defence taken by the first opposite party.

 

6.  In order to prove the complaint, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and 3 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.  On the side of the opposite parties along with their proof affidavits, 7 documents were filed as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 by the first opposite party and 6 documents were filed as Ex.B8 to Ex.B13 by the second opposite party.

 

7.  The District Forum, after analyzing the evidence have allowed the complaint on the reasoning, from the date of issue of the cheque by the complainants, they were prevented from using the said amount for their own purposes and the cheque was refunded by the opposite parties only on 12.02.2009.  Had the complainants deposited the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as deposit, they would have earned interest.  Therefore, from the date of issue of the cheque till the amount was refunded, the complainants are entitled to interest and thus directed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to jointly and severely pay Rs.904/- towards interest for the period between 12.01.2009 to 12.02.2009 on the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and further to pay Rs.10,000/-towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint.  Aggrieved over the same, these Appeals have been filed by the first and second opposite parties.

 

8.  Heard the arguments of the counsel appearing for the opposite parties.  Counsel for the complainants is not present.

 

9.   The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party had offered a Fixed Deposit Scheme by name “Sunidhi Term Deposit”.  The said deposit is for a period of two years and the first opposite party had offered an interest at the rate of 11% per annum.  The second opposite party was a duly authorized agent of the first opposite party.  Hence, the complainant had submitted an application to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said scheme for a period of two years, through the second opposite party.  The said cheque was handed over to the second opposite party at their Chennai office at Adyar, on 12.01.2009 at 11.00 a.m.  According to the complainant, since the 11% interest rate was not applicable due to the reduction of interest rates by the first opposite party with effect from 16.01.2009, he had handed over the said cheque on 12.01.2009 with a specific instruction to deposit the same at the earliest so that the cheque amount would get realized prior to 15.01.2009 and he can get 11% interest on the deposited amount.  But the second opposite party had deposited the cheque only on 13.01.2009 and since 14^th, 15^th and 16^th were holidays due to Pongal, Thiruvalluvar’s Day and Uzhavar Thirunal, the cheque amount was realized only on 17.01.2009, which has resulted in the reduction of interest, at the rate of 9.5%.  Hence, the complainant had asked them to refund the cheque amount.  Accordingly, the cheque amount was also refunded.  Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, had the cheque amount been realized prior to 16.01.2009, he would have got more interest and he would not have asked for refund of the amount.  Therefore, on this account, there is deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

10.  We find that the complainant knowing fully well there are continuous holidays from 13.01.2009 to 16.01.2009, had chosen to hand over the cheque on 12.01.2009 at 11.00 a.m.  The said cheque was also presented by the second opposite party on the very next day, in the Bank for clearance.  Due to the intervening holidays, the cheque got realized on 17.01.2009.  By that time, the rate of interest had been reduced.  Absolutely, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Atleast, if there is inordinate delay in depositing the cheque by the second opposite party, then the complainant may have some case.  But, this is not the situation here.  Moreover, the cheque amount has also been refunded within one month after completing the process.  Considering all these aspects, it appears that the District Forum has allowed the complaint only on sympathetic consideration.  In fact, the District Forum has not rendered any finding in the order impugned, with regard to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 

 

11.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order dated 08.10.2013 made in C.C. No.9 of 2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), has no legs to stand and the same is liable to be set aside.  Consequently, the Appeals are allowed. 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2022