PER SHRI.N. ARUMUGAM, HON’BLE MEMBER
This appeal is an exception to the judgment and order dated 22/02/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC No. 543/2007whereby the appellant/Ori.Opponents are directed to pay interest @ 8.5% on Fixed Deposit bearing No.KDR 1357 for Rs.4,906/- from 10/11/2000 till 5/11/07 and on the other Fixed Deposit bearing No.KDR552 for Rs.2424/- from 11/11/1999 till 5/11/07. Appellant is also directed to pay further interest @9% till realization.
Facts in nutshell are as under…
The Respondent/Complinant had kept two fixed deposits in Kamdhenu Fixed Deposit scheme of the Appllant Bank. The first Fixed Deposit bearing No.KDR 1357 was having maturity date 10/11/2000 and the maturity value Rs.4,906/- whereas the other Fixed Deposit bearing No.KDR552 was having maturity date 11/11/1999 and the maturity value Rs.2424/-. However, even after maturity of said KDRs, the maturity amount was not withdrawn by the Respondent and it remained with the appellant Bank for a period of about 7 years. On 15/10/2007 i.e. after about 7 years from the date of maturity of FDRs, the appellant bank issued a letter to the Respondent in respect of these FDRs requesting him to renew the deposits within 14 days from the due date to avail the benefits of renewal from the date of maturity. Accordingly the Respondent Renewed the FDRs on 27/10/2007. However, on 5/11/2007, he sought premature withdrawal of the FDR for medical purpose. The appellant allowed the premature withdrawal however, the Bank paid only the deposit value of the FDR however, it did not pay the interest. Which resulted into filing of complaint with the District Forum.
The District Consumer Forum, after hearing both the parties and considering the documents placed by the parties on record, partly allowed the complaint and was pleased to pass the order which is impugned in this appeal.
We heard Mrs.Naik, counsel for the appellant and Respondent in person and perused the documents placed on record.
It is pertinent to note that though the appellant Bank has mentioned that it had given timely reminders for renewal to the Respondent, there is nothing on record to show any such intimation prior to 15/10/2007.
However, on 15/10/2007 i.e. after about 7 years from the date of maturity of FDRs, the appellant bank issued a letter to the Respondent in respect of these FDRs requesting him to renew the deposits within 14 days from the due date to avail the benefits of renewal from the date of maturity. This it self shows the willingness of the appellant Bank to get the FDRs renewed and allow all the benefits of renewal from the date of maturity to the Respondent. Further, the plain meaning of renewal is continuation of something which is already existing. This goes to show that the appellant has admitted continuation of the earlier FDR. Otherwise, there could have been no reason for the appellant Bank to ask the Respondent in the year 2007, for renewal of the deposits within 14 days from the due date though the Due date of earlier FDR elapsed in the year 2000 itself, to avail the benefits of renewal from the date of maturity.
Further the letter also reflects that the appellant has assured the Respondent of all the benefits of renewal from the date of maturity of earlier FDR, which is mentioned in the letter as 10/11/2000. It seems that relying on this assurance of the Bank, the Respondent Renewed the FDRs on 27/10/2007 i.e. within 14 days from receipt of letter from the appellant Bank.
It is further pertinent to note that, in the FDR bearing No.KD/1/1357 dated 27/10/2007, the Deposit amount is shown as 4,905/- i.e. the maturity amount of earlier KDR and its Valuation date is mentioned as 10/11/2000 i.e. the maturity date of earlier KDR. Further, the maturity period is mentioned as 7 Yrs.& 6 months and the maturity date is mentioned as 10/5/2008. From these entries, it can safely be gathered that Appellant Bank had renewed the KDR from 10/11/2000 for 7 Yrs.& 6 months with interest @ of 8.5%.
Similarly, in the FDR bearing No.KD/01/014606 dated 27/10/2007, the Deposit amount is shown as 2,429/- i.e. the maturity amount of earlier KDR and its Valuation date is mentioned as 11/11/1999 i.e. the maturity date of earlier KDR. Further, the maturity period is mentioned as 8 Yrs.& 5 months and the maturity date is mentioned as 17/4/2008. From these entries, it can safely be gathered that Appellant Bank had renewed the KDR from 11/11/1999 for 8 Yrs.& 5 months with interest @ of 8.5%.
In these circumstances, when the Respondent asked for premature withdrawal of fixed deposits on 5/11/2007 for his urgent surgery, it can not be said that he sought the premature withdrawal within 15 days or within 3 months from the date of its renewal. Because the renewal dates of the KDRs as mentioned above, are 10/11/2000 and 11/11/1999 respectively. Hence the Guideline No III(a) regarding premature withdrawal of Kamdhenu Deposit Scheme, which is referred to by the Appellant Bank is not applicable in this case. On the contrary, the Respondent is entitled for interest on the FD amount as per Guideline No.III(b). Hence the District Forum has rightly held the appellant liable to pay the interest on the FD amounts of both the FDRs. with effect from their respective renewal dates till the payment of amounts. We don’t see any reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
However, it is apparent from the record that the Respondent/complainant also failed to renew the FDR in time and that too for 7 years. Hence he is partly responsible for not renewal of the fixed deposits in time. Hence he is not entitled for the cost of the suit. Hence we pass the following order.
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed.
Operative part No.3 of the impugnd order regarding payment of cost of Rs.2000/- by the appellant to the Respondent stands set-aside.
Rest of the order stands confirmed.
No orders as to costs of this appeal.
Dated 05/12/2011
