By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to pay the unpaid contracted interest, cost and compensation due to the unfair trade practice.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant had deposited some funds in Foreign Currency with Canara Bank, Vythiri Branch, Kerala while he was employed in Kuwait. The deposits were matured and sent for renewal during early January 2011, after ascertaining, the prevailing interest rates. However, when the renewed receipts were received, complainant observed that opposite parties had not put the matured value of the respective deposits. Since the renewed receipts came by post without any letter or explanation, complainant emailed to the bank branch on 23^rd January, 2011 requesting for the explanation, followed by a reminder on 29^th January, 2011 with a copy to their circle office at Kozhikode, which has administrative control over the Vythiri Branch. The circle office advised complainant by their email dated 01.02.2011 that they have sought details from the branch and will revert at the earliest. In spite of several phone enquiries on 0495 2700686, NRI Cell, Customer Service Section, Calicut Circle Office, no further details were provided. Having first written to the branch concerned, reported to their controlling office at Kozhikode and patiently waiting for a month, the complainant had presented his case to the Banking Ombudsman, Trivandrum by email as well as by fax message on 03.03.2011 for their consideration. The Banking Ombudsman by their letter ref. OBO(T) No.6415/15652/2010-11 dated 19.05.2011 informed that they have closed the case based on the statement by the Bank that “while renewing the deposits designated to US $ in December 2009, interest rate was inadvertently shown as 2.89% instead of 2.03% as was applicable then. Hence actual maturity value of the deposits paid was less”. The Banking Ombudsman also enclosed therewith a copy of the letter dated 17.05.2011 addressed to the complainant from the Bank regretting their mistake. Original of this letter was subsequently received by the complainant by post on 25^th May 2011. Here complainant respectfully submit that how can a bank of national standing, could commit such a mistake affecting the sole benefit of their customer, for which the investment is made. Complainant unable to understand, why the bank did not realize their mistake during the whole tenure of the investment?. If it was a mistake, as they claim, the bank should have informed the complainant at the time of renewal and mailing the renewed receipt. Again, when complainant noticed the difference in values on checking the renewed deposit receipts, complainant had requested for clarifications, which the bank and their circle office, Kozhikode having administrative control of their Vythiri branch systematically ignored complainant's jest request for reasons best known to them, until, complainant had elevated the issue to the Banking Ombudsman. It is worth recording that the bank took close to four months to act and send this 'regret' letter. If it was a mere mistake, bank should have honestly informed complainant the difference at the time of mailing the renewed receipts or atleast when complainant requested for. This complainant feel that the bank has willfully ignored his request, and it is a clear proof of gross negligence and deficiency in banking services. The Banking Ombudsman had subsequently upheld the banks action without allowing any compensation for the loss of contracted interest on complainant's deposits.

3. A review application dated 31^st May, 2011 was submitted to the Banking Ombudsman Thiruvananthapuram, providing further information, but did not entertain under the provisions of clause 9(3)(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006, see Banking Ombudsman's letter dated 10.06.2011. Then the case was then presented to the Banking Ombudsman Appellate authority, Reserve Bank of India, on 9^th July 2011 enclosing there with all the previous communications for their consideration. To his dismay, they have upheld the Banking Ombudsman's decision, by Reserve Bank's letter No. OSD/BOS/930/13.23.14/2011-12 dated 24.08.2011, however with liberty to pursue his issue with any other appropriate Forum for redressal. The complainant had then submitted his case at Honorable CDRF, Palakkad on 25.01.2012, (ref.23/2012) but was not considered as the transactions took place outside their jurisdiction. Since the controlling office of the Canara Bank Vythiri branch, functions at Kozhikode, to whom complainant had sought their assistance, being the 2nd opposite party, complainant had instituted his case at Honorable CDRF, Kozhikode chapter for their consideration, within the provisions of clause 11 (2), chapter III of the consumer protection act, 1986. Complainant's case was admitted, ref: CC 56/2012 dated 07.02.2012 and came up for hearing several times in their sitting until July 2013, and finally determined that the actual cause of action took place out of their territorial jurisdiction and their order dated 8^th May 2014 dismissing the case was received by me by registered post on 19^th May 2014. Under the circumstances, complainant submitted his case to this Forum for consideration and suitable Orders.

4. Had the bank informed the complainant in time the now disclosed lower interest, complainant would have invested the funds elsewhere and earned profit or at least would not have sustained mental shock and associated personal disturbance. Further complainant had to spend substantial time and efforts to escalate the issue to the Bank's Circle Office, Banking Ombudsman and even to the appellate authority, Reserve Bank of India, complainant had also spend considerable amount of money, for conveyance and time for attending the CDRF, Kozhikode on the days of posting his case. The fact that he had given enough time and opportunity, the Bank or their circle office has never bothered to answer his written queries in time, which he feel the bank has acted irresponsibly and deliberately which he feel is a clear deficiency of banking service, as well. Based on the above, the complainant appealing the Forum to admit his complaint and issue suitable orders to pay the unpaid contracted interest, compensation for the time and effort, expense on account of proceedings, legal consultation, conveyance, etc., above all, depriving my family of my presence and quality time during the limited vacation, otherwise available to them.

5. Notices were served to opposite parties and they entered in appearance and filed version stating that the above complaint is not maintainable either under law or on the facts and the same has to be dismissed in limine. There is no bonafides for filing the above complaint and the above complaint is filed only to harass the opposite party and so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint. Except those that are expressly admitted hereunder, these opposite parties deny all the averments and allegations made in the complaint. The complainant had already filed complaint before the Honorable CDRF Palakkad and also filed complaint before the Banking Ombudsman Trivandrum and also the Ombudsman Appellate Authority and also filed complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal forum Kozhikode for the same relief vide CC No. 56/2012 and the Honorable Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kozhikode dismissed the complaint after elaborate evidence and hearing. Therefore the above complaint is barred by a resjudicate. Moreover the cause of action for the above complaint arose in the month of January 2011 and so the above complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation also.

6. It is true that the complainant had deposited funds in Foreign Currency with the opposite party No.1. It is also true that these deposits were made after ascertaining the prevailing interest rates and when the deposits were matured, it was sent for renewal in 2011. While renewing the deposits designated in U.S. Dollars in December 2009, interest rates were inadvertently shown as 2.89% whereas the actual rate of interest of 2.02% only. Hence the actual maturity value of the deposits shown against 4.U.S.$ deposits FCNR 00116 U.S. $ 6030.68, FCNR 00115 U.S. $ 10064.87, FCNR 00117 U.S. $ 3677.09 and FCNR 00118U.S. $18385.47 were less by U.S. $54.03, 90.16, 32.15 and 164.71 respectively. Since the interests were mistakenly shown as 2.89%, the deposits were renewed for amounts of U.S. $ 6. 155.19, 10,272.68, 3753 and 18.765.05 respectively on 14.12.2010. In the case of deposits in Euro while renewing in December 2009, interest was by mistake shown as 2.73% whereas the actual applicability rate was only 2.22% and hence the actual maturity value of the deposits was less by Euro 39.41 on 14.12.2010. These mistakes happened inadvertently and were not at all intentional and the opposite parties have convinced the same to the complainant also.

7. The complainant knew very well that the entries made in the Bank Receipts were inadvertent mistakes. The complainant was perfectly aware of the interest that he was going to get in the Deposits made. It is most improbable to say that a person depositing amounts in the Bank will not be aware of the interest that he is going to get from the Bank. The Bank had paid to the complainant the correct applicable rate of interest of the FCNR Deposits prevailing at that time as per the banks guidelines. It is also interesting to note that the interest rate of FCNR in fixed deposits basing on Reserve Bank of India guidelines is practically the same in all the banks. The complainant is unnecessarily taking advantage of the inadvertent mistakes that have crept in the deposits receipts issued to him.

8. The complainant had filed the complaint before the banking Ombudsman and the Ombudsman after considering entire details of the matter had come to the conclusion that the case is only to be closed under Clause 13 A of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. The above petition is filed only because of the fact there was an observation in the order passed by the Banking Ombudsman to the effect that the complaint is at liberty to approach any other Forum in the matter. It is not true or correct to say that had the Bank informed the complainant in time the now disclosed lower interest, he would have invested the fund elsewhere and earned profit or at least would not have sustained mental shock and associated present disturbance. It is not true or correct to say that the complainant had to spent substantial time and efforts to escalate the issue to the Bank's Circle Office, Banking Ombudsman and the Appellant Authority, Reserve Bank of India, Consumer Dispute Redressal forum, Palakkat and Kozhikode. The complainant knew very well that what is the correct interest. It is seen that he was not ignorant of that fact and there was no necessity for the complainant to run from one Forum to another Forum.

9. The complainant is not entitled to get an award as prayed for in the complaint. He is not entitled to get unpaid contracted interest, compensation for time and effort, expense on account of proceedings, legal consultation, conveyance etc. Compensation claimed under all heads are baseless, excessive, exaggerated and not supported by documents. So the complainant is not entitled to get any amount listed in the Table under various heads such as difference in maturity value, compensation for loss of revenue, compensation for time and effort, compensation for mental agony and associated deprival of quality family life, and cost of proceedings. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.2,28,031/-or any amount as claimed in the complaint. Therefore the above complainant is only to be dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

10. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A19 were marked. Ext.A1 to A5 are the disputed Receipts issued by Canara Bank to the complainant. Ext.A6 is the printout of Email dated 23.01.2011. Ext.A7 is also the printout of Email dated 29.01.2011. Ext.A8 is the Letter dated 03.03.2011. Ext.A9 is the copy of complaint on Banking Ombudsman Format. Ext.A10, A11 and A12 are the copy of Letter from Banking Ombudsman with a copy of Banks letter dated 17.05.2011. Ext.A13 and A14 is the copy of Review request to Banking Ombudsman dated 31.05.2011. Ext.A15 is the copy of Reply from Banking Ombudsman dated 10.06.2010. Ext.A16 and 17 is the Complainant's appeal dated 09.07.2010 to the Reserve Bank of India. Ext.A18 is the copy of letter from Reserve Bank of India. Ext.A19 is the Copy of Order dated 08.05.2014.

11. On considering the complaint, version, documents and evidence we framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the complaint is barred by resjudicate?

3. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the

part of opposite parties?

4. Relief and cost.

12. Point No.1:- The complaint filed by the complainant in the CDRF, Kozhikode is dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and also observed that the complainant has liberty to approach proper fora, the time taken to conduct the case here shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. Since the delay is condoned by the CDRF, Kozhikode the complainant filed in this Forum is within the period of limitation. Hence the complaint is maintainable before the Forum upon the limitation aspect. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- Since the CDRF, Kozhikode found as stated above and the findings of the Ombudsman to the effect that However the complainant is at liberty to approach any other Forum in the matter. Hence on the point of rejudicata also the contention will not lie. On this ground also the complaint is maintainable before the fora. The Point No.2 is found accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- The disputed renewal effected in the month of January 2011 after knowing the mistake committed by the bank the complainant given a letter to the opposite parties for clarification on 23.01.2011 and a reminder on 29.01.2011, no clarification given to the complainant so far and more over inspite of several phone enquiries on 0495 2700686 NRI Cell Customer Service Section, Calicut Circle Office, no further details were provided. So after waiting for one month the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman on 03.03.2011 for their consideration. The Banking Ombudsman by their letter Ref. OBO(T) No.6415/15652/2010-11 dated 19.05.2011 informed that they have closed the case based on the statement by the Bank that “While renewing the deposits designated to US $ in December 2009 interest rate was inadvertently shown as 2.89% instead of 2.03% as was applicable then. Hence actual maturity value of the deposits paid was less”. The Banking Ombudsman also enclosed therewith a copy of the letter dated 17.05.2011 addressed to the complainant from the Bank regretting their mistake. Original of this letter was subsequently received by the complainant by post on 25^th May 2011. The mistakes can happen to any one but after noting the inadvertent mistake not acting suddenly/accordingly or not taking appropriate steps for clearing the defect is a clear deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.

16. If it was a mistake as they claim the bank should have informed the complainant at the time of complaint to the bank or at the time of complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. The complainant received the regret letter from the bank only after he had received the copy of that letter from the Banking Ombudsman. It is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service from the side of opposite parties. Hence the Point No.3 is found accordingly.

17. Point No.4:- Since the Point No.3 is found against the opposite parties, they are liable to pay the unpaid contracted interest with interest, cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.26,031/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand and Thirty One) with 12% interest from the date of inadvertent mistake committed by the opposite party and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 15% per annum for whole the amount.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of July 2015.

Date of Filing:24.05.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Kesavankutty. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Rejaneesh. Manager, Canara Bank, Vythiri.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Receipt.

A2. Copy of Receipt.

A3. Copy of Receipt.

A4. Copy of Receipt.

A5. Copy of Receipt.

A6. Printout of Email

A7. Printout of Email.

A8. Copy of Letter.

A9. Copy of complaint on Banking Ombudsman Format.

A10. Copy of Letter. Dt:19.05.2011.

A11. Copy of Letter page 1. Dt:17.05.2011.

A12. Copy of Letter page 2.

A13. Copy of Review Request page 1. dt:31.05.2011.

A14. Copy of Review Request page 2.

A15. Copy of Reply from Banking Ombudsman. Dt:10.06.2011.

A16. Copy of complainant's Appeal to RBI Page 1. Dt:09.07.2011.

A17. Copy of complainant's Appeal to RBI Page 2. Dt:09.07.2011.

A18. Copy of letter. Dt:24.08.2011.

A19. Copy of Order. Dt: 08.05.2014.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-