This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri U. Ravisankar, Advocate for the complainant and Sri B.Trinadha Rao & Sri E.Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for O.Ps and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

SRI T. SRIRAMA MURTHY,PRESIDENT

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.67,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of encashment of F.D.Rs and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint on the following averments:

          The complainant has taken 4 F.D.Rs each for Rs.2,50,000/- from the O.P on 3-10-2011 and the maturity value of each bond is Rs.3,27,649/- and the date of maturity is 29-6-2014.  Due to some unforeseen reason the complainant had encashed all the 4 F.D.rs just before 11 days prior to the date of their maturity date.  The O.P instead of deducting interest for the 11 days which comes to about Rs.3,000/- have deducted a sum of Rs.70,000/- as penalty and paid the balance amount to the complainant.  The complainant protested the illegal act of the O.Ps for deducting huge amount as penalty and also got issued a registered lawyer’s notice dt.28-7-2014 calling upon them to repay the amount deducted towards penalty but of no avail.   As the men of O.Ps are in dereliction of duties and as there is deficiency of service on their part, the complainant suffered a lot and is constrained to file the complaint for the above said reasons.  Hence, the complaint.

          The O.P filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and as the O.P has acted according to the provisions of Law in respect of deduction of amounts for pre maturity and encashment of the bonds there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.  

          It is averred that the O.P has introduced term deposit for a period of 1000 days and the amount deposited carry interest at 9.50% and for Senior Citizens additional interest of 0.50% is to be paid and in case of premature closure of time deposits without renewing them for a period longer than the remaining period of the deposit, penalty of 1.00% will be levied on the interest rate for the contracted period / the interest rate for the period for which the deposit has remained with the bank whichever is less.

          It is averred that the complainant had approached the O.P bank on              18-6-2014 for premature closure of all the term deposit accounts and as per HO circular the applicable rate of interest is to be taken from the Slab of 2 years to less than 3 years for normal citizen at Rs.9.25%, for senior citizen at 9.75% and as the complainant withdrawn the amount of term deposits on the 989^th day and as such according to the circular, penalty of 1.00% was levied and after deducting the penalty, the complainant got interest rate at 8.75% instead of 10%.  It is averred that the complainant without making any protest has received the amount paid by the O.P and to have a renewal again he got issued a notice with false and frivolous allegations.  Since the O.Ps are not in dereliction of duty and as there is no deficiency of service on their part, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In support of complainant’s case the affidavit evidence of P.W.1 is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.7 are marked.   On behalf of O.P, the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 is filed and got marked Ex.B.1 and B.2.  Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          Points:-     It is the specific contention of the complainant that the O.Ps committed wrong in deducting a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards the interest for only 11 days as the bonds possessed by the complainant were submitted for encashment 11 days prior to their maturity date.  The O.P has contended that as per rule they have deducted Rs.70,000/- and as the complainant received the balance maturity amount of all the 4 bonds without any protest and as there is no deficiency of service on their part, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Before adverting to the merits of the case we would like to mention the admitted facts.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant has taken 4 bonds each for Rs.2,50,000/- from the O.P on 3-10-2011 and the maturity value of each bond is Rs.3,27,649/- and its date of maturity is 29-6-2014.  Ex.A.1 to A.4 are Xerox copies of the 4 bonds.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has surrendered the bonds just before 11 days prior to its maturity date and he was paid a sum of Rs.3,16,052/- towards the maturity value of each bond and that the complainant has received the same without making any protest.

          The complainant has taken a plea that the O.P instead of deducting a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards interest for the 11 days has deducted Rs.70,000/- on all the 4 bonds towards penalty and the said act amounts to deficiency in service.  As per the O.P, once the bond is encashed before its maturity date the bond holder will be deprived to get the contractual rate of interest.  As per them the rate of interest agreed to be paid by the O.P for the amount deposited for Rs.1,000/- days is 9.50% and in case of senior citizen an additional interest of Rs.0.50% will be paid in addition to the said normal rate of interest.

          The learned counsel for complainant has contended that though the complainant has surrendered the Bonds for its encashment 11 days prior to the date of maturity, the rate of interest i.e., 0.50% given to the complainant as he is a senior citizen cannot be deprived to have the said rate of interest even though the bond is encashed before 11 days of its maturity.

         However, as seen from the Head office circular with serial No.420 of State Bank of Hyderabad bearing No.DEP/2011-12/5 dt.11-7-2011 it is clearly mentioned that concession/waiver of penalty for pre-mature closure, generally for deposits of above Rs.1 crore, will be permitted in exceptional circumstances on a case to case basis by the General Manager (Ops) / General Manager                   (C & IB).

         On perusal of the entire material placed on record, it shows that the following vital / critical factors may be considered in the case on hand as it is a special case under special circumstances which merits special consideration.

1. The complainant is a retired railway employee aged above 68 years who invested his hard earnings / terminal benefits only in SBH by reposing full confidence by way of 4 F.D.Rs each Rs.2,50,000/- on 3-10-2011, whose maturity value is being Rs.3,27,649/- on 29-6-2014.
2. The complainant opted for pre-mature payment  of the aforesaid bonds only to meet some emergency requirement that too just before 11 days left for maturity date thus deserving for Bank’s humanitarian approach.
3. As per contracted rate, the applicable rate of interest is 9.50% and since the complainant is a senior citizen he is entitled to further / additional rate of 0.50%.
4. Even as per the arguments advanced by the O.P i.e., after deducting 1 % penalty it comes to only 9% p.a., for which the complainant is entitled to
5. It is also most unjustified and illegal to deduct such a huge amount from the total maturity amount just for 11 days left over period, which amounts to unfair trade practice and unjustified action (causing irreparable loss and injury to the very senior citizen and retired person) on the part of the O.P.   Hence, the O.P is expected to be rational and realistic in their approach.  Under all the above facts and circumstances and critical factors, the complaint deserves to be allowed in part.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the O.P to calculate interest at 9% p.a., and pay the amount accordingly to the complainant.  The O.P is further directed to pay costs of the complaint of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) which includes advocate fee of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only).  This order shall be complied within one month from today

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the  3^rd  day of July, 2015.

Member                                                           President.

C.C. 80 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of FDR No.62203092560 dt.3-10-2011
2. Ex.A.2 Xerox copy of FDR No.62203092582 dt.3-10-11
3. Ex.A.3 Xerox copy of FDR No.62203092605 dt.3-10-11
4. Ex.A.4 Original Statement of Account
5. Ex.A.5 O/c of Regd.Lawyer’s notice 22-7-2014
6. Ex.A.6 Original reply notice dt.13-8-14

For O.P:-   

1. Ex.B.1 Circular issued by the Head Office of O.P Bank dt.11-7-11
2. Ex.B.2 Reply Regd., Lawyers Notice dt.13-8-2014.

                                                                                      President.