Kerala

Idukki

CC/131/2019

john Varkey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Urban Co- Op bank LTD - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :02/07/19

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of June 2021

Present :

SMT.ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO. 131/2019

Between

Complainant : John, S/o Varkey,

Vennayapallil House,

Kanchiyar Village, Kanchiyar P.O.,

Chakkampuzha, Idukki District, Pin 685 511.

(By Adv: V.V.Sunny)

And

Opposite Party : The Kattappana Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.,

Kattappana , Represented by its Secretary,

Kattappana – 685 508.

(By Adv: P.A.Suhas)

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

The complainant's case is that he joined Jeevan Suraksha Deposit Scheme conducted by opposite party. At that time, opposite party agreed that, if Rs.5835/- deposited for 20 years, he can get Rs.1 Lakh as maturity value.

 

On believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant deposited Rs.5835/- in the name of Aleeda who is his elder daughter for her education purpose on 25/03/1999 and also he deposited Rs.6380/- in the name of Anjumol who is his younger daughter on 06/11/2001. The opposite party has issued cash certificates of both deposits. The number of such certificates are 128, 214 respectively. Copies of such certificates are produced.

 

The deposit in the name of Aleeda was matured on 25/03/2019. The complainant approached the opposite party for getting the matured amount Rs.1 Lakh. But the opposite party was not ready to pay Rs.1 Lakh. The complainant demanded so many times to the opposite party for the above said maturity amount Rs.1 Lakh. But he didn't pay Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant. The complainant alleges that these acts of the opposite party is deficiency in service on the part of him.

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

 

After that, the complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party with demanding 1 Lakh Rupees. Though he received notice, neither he sent reply notice nor he made payment of Rs.1Lakh to the complainant. Therefore, opposite party is liable to pay such 1 lakh amount along with 12% interest from the date of maturity to the complainant. Hence this Commission may be granted following reliefs:-

 

 

(a) To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1 Lakh along with interest from the maturity date.

 

(b) To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony happened to the complainant.

 

100. To grant any other reliefs as court consideration.

      

Notice served from this Commission to opposite party. Upon such notice, opposite party entered appearance through his counsel and filed written version.

 

In the version, the opposite party challenged all the averments in the complaint except that it is expressly admitted hereunder. It is admitted that they received the deposit amount from the complainant. But the rate of interest may be regularised as per the direction of Reserve Bank of India. The opposite party also submitted that they had sent an intimation notice to the complainant on 15/09/2004 and it is informed about the changings of the rate of interest and also it is informed that, if the complainant close the account now, he can get the full benefit as per the interest which was fixed at the time of joining the scheme otherwise, after 01/10/2004, the complainant can get only the interest which is fixed in accordance with the regulations issued at various times as per the rules framed by RBI and so the maturity value may be changed.

 

The opposite party also contended that on the basis of reduction of interest rate by the Reserve Bank of India, they had arranged a board meeting and it is discussed that about the variations of interest amount in Jeevan Suraksha deposit scheme and this matter was intimated to all the depositors. As a member of the bank, the complainant has known about all these matters. Hence, this complaint against the opposite party is illegal and it may be dismissed.

 

 

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

The complainant has adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and produced documents. The documents Ext.P1 to Ext.P3(series) were marked and the complainant was examined as PW1.

 

The opposite party has not filed proof affidavit. He produced 2 documents. Ext.R1 and Ext.R2 (series) were marked. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party.

 

The point arose for the consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

The Point:- We have heard both counsels and have gone through the evidence on records. The complainant's counsel argued that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.5835/- on 25/03/1999 under the Jeevan Suraksha Scheme on the assurance to repay the amount with Rs.1 Lakh after 20 years ie, on 25/03/2019. But the opposite party was not given the said Rs.1 Lakh amount on the reason that the interest was changed as per the RBI guidelines. The complainant's counsel also pointed out that the opposite party has not produced the Reserve Bank guidelines with respect to the reduced rate of interest. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the decision of the opposite party was taken unilaterally. The counsel also submitted that the complainant is eligible for getting Rs.1 Lakh along with interest from the opposite party bank. Further the complainant is also entitled for compensation and cost of the proceedings.

 

The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant was informed about the decision of the general body regarding the changings of the interest in Jeevan Suraksha Scheme by the notice ie, Ext.R1. But the complainant does not receive the notice deliberately. However he has known about the decision taken by the Board meeting. The counsel also submitted that the opposite party decided on the basis of the direction given by the RBI and it is stated in Ext.P1 that rate of interest may be changed in terms of statutory directions of RBI.

 

We are of the considered view that there is no document produced with respect to the changings of interest as per the RBI regulations by the opposite party. It is clearly found that the decision taken by the board meeting was unilaterally. Hence, this decision of the opposite party bank amounts to unfair trade practice. In the absence of any document pertaining to direction in the reduction of rate of interest from the RBI, a mere decision taken by the general body of the opposite party cannot be considered. Once accepting the deposit and using it for the benefit of the opposite party and later decide to reduce the rate of interest or to cancel that scheme is also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

(Cont.....4)

-4-

 

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the maturity amount Rs.1 Lakh along with 9% interest from the maturity period and also opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of June, 2021.

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - John Varkey

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Cash Certificate

Ext.P2- Letter to the Secretary Urban Co-Operative Bank, Kattappana dated 24/04/2019

Ext.P3(s)-Acknowledgement card

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1-Letter from Urban Co-Operative Bank, Kattappana dated 15/09/2004.

Ext.R2(s) - Minutes of the Board Meeting.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT