DATE OF DISPOSAL: 25.09.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

The fact of the case in brief is that the  complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short the O.Ps ) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission. 

2. The complainant being appointed a storage agent by the District Manager, Orissa State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Ganjam, Chatrapur for streamling the P.D. system of Polasara and the complainant deposited security amount of Rs.50,000/- in shape of Rs.25,000/- in cash and another Rs.25,000/- by pledging 3 STDR (Special Term Deposit Receipt) issued by the State Bank of India, ADB, Polosara  non-transferable simple interest @ 10%  per annum as per Reserve Bank of India directive and the interest payable on these deposits is subject to the directives that may be issued by the Reserve Bank of India for time to time and the amount of interest will be paid/reinvested at monthly/quarterly/half yearly rests deposited original STDRS with the Orissa State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Ganjam, Chhatrapur. The complainant’s contract for storage agent was terminated by the Orissa State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Ganjam, Chhatrapur on lapse of time period and said Corporation vide its letter No. 19 dated 14.01.2010 intimated the complainant and the O.P.No.1 that as per departmental audit for the year 94-95 and 95-96 vide its Head Office letter dated 03.09.2009 found that the complainant has no dues to the Corporation. Hence the corporation released the original STDRs in favour of the complainant duly endorsing by releasing pledge on the reverse side of the STDs and also requested the O.P. No.1 for release in favour of the complainant. After receiving the said original STDRs from the Orissa State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Ganjam, Chhatrapur, the complainant on 12.04.2010 alongwith original letter dated 14.01.2010 issued by the corporation approached the O.P. No.1 for renewal of SSTDRs further period up to 04.04.2015. The O.P.No.1 received the letter and STDRs and declined renewal and offered to take maturity amounts Rs.13,450/-, Rs.10,087.50 and Rs.10,087.50 on the pretext that since the complainant not renewed the STDRs in due dates i.e. on 04.04.1989, hence, it cannot be renewed further period at last turned original SSTDRs to the complainant but not returned the original letter dated 14.01.2010 to the complainant and kept the letter in official record purposes to cancel pledge. The complainant again on 08.11.2013 alongwith original STDRs with copy of letter approached the O.P.No.1 with a request letter for renewal of STDRs for further period up to 04.04.2015 by issued new SSTDRs. The O.P. received the letter, but again declined to renewal of the STDRs in favour of the complainant for further period.The O.Ps keeping funds of the complainant in its hands and utilizing the same and earns profits thereof, whereas not sharing profits to the complainant and forcing to take maturity amount as on 04.04.1989 Rs.13,450/-, Rs.10,087.50 and Rs.10,087.50 respectively. The O.Ps are required to renew with STDRs automatically when it becomes due and also liable to pay matured amounts to the complainant. The non-renewal of FDRs by the complainant on 04.04.1989 does not ifso-facto cease its renewal. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.1,64,643/- towards maturity value of 3 STDRs and interest thereon from  05.04.2014 to 04.04.2016 two years @ 10% per annum, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the bests interest of justice.

3. The O.Ps filed written version/written argument through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made by the complainant are not all true and correct which are to be proof of the same. The complainant deposited security amount of Rs.50,000/- in shape of Rs.25,000/- in cash and another Rs.25,000/- by pledging 3 STDR (Special Term Deposit Receipt) issued by the State Bank of India, ADB, Polosara  non-transferable simple interest @ 10%  per annum. The complainant on 12.04.2010 approached the O.P.No.1 alongwith the aforesaid three STDRs for renewal up to 04.04.2015 and the O.P.No.1 declined to renew the same and offered to take maturity amount of each STDR and also returned the STDRs to the complainant and not returned the original letter dated 14.01.2010 to the complainant and kept the letter in official record of the O.P.No.1 are totally false and fabricated one. The facts remains which denying all the allegations of the complainant, it is submitted that the complainant after taking the aforesaid STDRs in original did not come forward to the O.P.No.1 either or taking the matured amount or to renew the STDRs after 04.04.1989. He also did not bother to sleep over the matter after long lapse of time i.e. 12.04.2010 and did not approach to the O.P.No.1 for the reasons best known to him (say 21 eras). The O.P.No.1 and 2 are in the management of the Bank financial administration, they have been guided by the Bank regulations from time to time. It is true that after maturity amount the person holding the SSTDRs have to approach the Bank either to take back their matured amount or to renew the STDRS for further period as to their choice. If they chose to renew the matured amount for more periods, they have to requests the O.P.No.1 by endorsing their signature on the reverse side of each STDRS. In this regard the complainant has not done his duty properly. It can be said that there has been rendered any deficiency of service and carrying unfair trade practice for which the O.Ps are liable to pay the total claim amount for Rs.2,41,106/- to the complainant. The complainant did not implead the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lochapada Branch, as a party in this Complainant case. The entire allegations made in the complaint should be put in to rest and the complaint case may kindly be dismissed against the O.Ps with costs in the best interest of justice.

4. On the date of hearing both parties are present. We heard argument from them at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and documents available in the case record. It is apparent from the documents filed by both the parties that, the op bank has violated its own admission in Spl. Term Deposit Receipts. The bank has specifically mentioned under “N.B.-Interest will cease on the due date when this receipt should be sent in endorsed by the depositor for payment or renewal.” Secondly, the op bank has gain money out of reinvestment at monthly/quarterly/half-yearly/yearly rests. In the instant case, the interests of all the STDRs were not ceased on the material date of maturity because the money receipts were pledged with the Orissa State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Ganjam, Chhatrapur. So the interest is continuing in said STDRs till acceptance for the renewal of the instruments by the opposite parties. It is also manifest from the available documents that, the ops declined to renewal of the STDRs in favour of the complainant for further period speaks volumes against the bank and it is transparent that, it is breach of contract and the op rendered deficient services to the present complainant in day broad light. The Commission relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that, “the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposits. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9 per cent granted by the Commission is fair and just," reported in Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/71246029/ in the matter of Experion Developers Private Ltd. vsSushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No. 6044 Of 2019 & Civil Appeal No. 7149 of 2019 on 7 April, 2022.

The law is well settled in M/s Vijay Industries v. M/s Natl Technologies Ltd., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held on 17.12.2008 that, “interest of justice would be sub-served if we exercise of out jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the respondent to pay simple interest on the admitted sum at the rate of 12% pa on the balance amount instead of 24% pa.”

            So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the O.Ps failed to take any effective steps to pay the maturity value of Rs.50,000/- for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally. As such the complaint is entitled to get maturity value with interest. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award cost in favour of the complainant. 

In the result we allowed the case and direct the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to pay interest @ 10 % per annum from the dates of deposits of amount with effect from 04.04.1986 to the complainant till the actual date of acceptance for renewal of the STDRs in question together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to recover the entire amount from the Opposite Party with interest @ 14% per annum from the date of filling of the case i.e. 23.04.2016 till actual date of realization of the same is made under the Consumer Protection Act.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

PRONOUNCED ON: 25.09.2023.