DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2023
Filed on: 29/12/2016
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 711/2016
COMPLAINANT
Meena Mohan, S/o. P.I. Mathai, Kuriyadath Bethel, 191/7, Kallissery P.O., Chenganoor, Alappuzha Dist. Pin 689124.
(Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvankulam 682305.
(Rep. by Adv. K.S. Dilip, 32/2291 B-5, Vasudev Complex, Palarivattom, Kochi 682025)
D.B.Binu, President.
FINAL ORDER
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, the complainant joined the Scheme Perennial Pension Plan of the opposite party on 4.4.1989. Rs.1,000/- per month for ten years was also paid by the complainant from his account. The opposite party’s promise was to pay 13% interest for life or till the amount is withdrawn. After paying the money for 10 years, the opposite party gave a receipt of Rs.2,44,635/- to the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party duly paid the interest till 12.10.2016 to the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party informed the complainant that the said scheme was discontinued. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practices. The complainant is entitled to get 13% interest for her entire life period.
The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to disburse 13% interest for her entire life period and the costs of the proceedings of the complaint.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party and the opposite party received the notice, entered appearance, and filed version.
3) Version of the Opposite Party.
The complainant has remitted Rs.1,000/- per month for ten years from 4/4/1989 in the scheme Perennial Pension Plan is true. But the averment that the opposite party offered 13% interest for the lifetime or to till withdrawal of the amount is incorrect. It is also true that the complainant was given a fixed Deposit Receipt for the amounts remitted and interest was paid at the rate of 13% till 12/10/2016. Every scheme of deposits is issued by the Bank as per the RBI guidelines. The guidelines issued by RBI from time to time also shall be applicable. Continuance or discontinuance of the scheme also shall be as per the guidelines of RBI. In the case of the Perennial Pension Plan, the scheme was discontinued in the year 2009 and the same was within the knowledge of the complainant also. Hence the present claim is barred by limitation also. The complainant herein had at the time of initial deposit under the Perennial Pension plan opted for the 120 months deposit scheme. Under the scheme, the complainant had the option to receive a monthly payment of a fixed amount or to deposit the maturity amount and opt for the interest at the prevailing rate. In both options, the maturity at the 120th month will be kept as a Fixed Deposit. In the above case, the complainant had not opted for payment of a monthly fixed amount but opted to deposit the amount as a Fixed Deposit. Hence, she cannot now claim payment of any amount per or a cumulative payment of a monthly fixed amount. The complainant can claim only the rate of interest as applicable to Fixed Deposits. The maturity amount due to the complainant in the present case was deposited as a fixed deposit as opted by the Complainant. Hence, she was entitled to get the rate of interest as applicable to Fixed Deposits from time to time. Fixed deposits have a fixed rate of interest only for the period of deposit. Renewal Fixed deposit shall be with the prevailing rate of interest at the time of renewal, as per the rules of the Bank and also as per the RBI regulations.
The opposite party never offered any fixed rate of interest for a lifetime as claimed by the complainant. Since the opposite party is also governed by the RBI regulations, renewal of the fixed deposits shall also be with the rate of interest applicable at the time of renewal. Under the Perennial Pension Plan, the fixed sum is payable per month only if at the time of maturity such payment is opted by the customer as a pension payment. On the other hand, if the customer opts for a Fixed Deposit of the maturity amount, then the deposit will carry interest as per the prevailing rate of interest and not any fixed rate for the whole lifetime. Since the complainant had opted for depositing the maturity amount in the plan as a Fixed Deposit, the same will carry the prevailing rate of interest. Once the option for a monthly fixed amount is opted by the complainant the prevailing rate of interest at the time of renewal will only be applicable. Moreover the rules related to the Perennial Pension Plan also provide for a change in rate interest in case of fixed deposits. Hence the claim of the complainant to get 13% interest and the cost of the proceedings are liable to be dismissed with costs to this opposite party. In the above case, the complainant has no case that she has not opted for depositing the maturity amount into Fixed Deposit. She has no case that she had continued the pension option. All amount paid to the complainant was out of the interest portion of the Deposits and not as payment of amounts as a pension plan. Since the pension plan is not opted for by the complainant when the plan became matured after ten years after the initial deposit, the present claim for payment under the pension option will not sustain and is liable to be dismissed.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed 4 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-4.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the Term Deposit Receipt issued by the opposite party dated 12-10-2006.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of Brochure
Exhibit A-3: Copy of letter received from the opposite party
Exhibit A-4: Copy of letter received from the opposite party
The opposite party had produced 2 documents that were marked as Exhibits B1- and B-2.
Exhibit B-1: Copy of letter issued to the complainant
Exhibit B-2: Copy of Terms and condition of Perennial Pension Plan
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 2 (d), a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a copy of the term deposit receipt issued by the opposite party dated 12-10-2006 (Exbt.A-1.). Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
In the above case, the complainant has produced Exhibits A1 to A4. All in support of his case. The complaint is regarding the reluctance on the part of the opposite party to pay the interest rate offered for the entire life period. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party had introduced the Perennial Pension Plan for Non-Resident Indians. The brochure was issued by the opposite party (Exhibit A-2).
The counsel for the opposite party submitted that every scheme of deposits is issued by the Bank as per the RBI guidelines. The guidelines issued by RBI from time to time also shall be applicable. Continuance or discontinuance of the scheme also shall be as per the guidelines of RBI. In the case of the Perennial Pension Plan, the scheme was discontinued in the year 2009 and the same was within the knowledge of the complainant also. Once the option for a monthly fixed amount is opted by the complainant the prevailing rate of interest at the time of renewal will only be applicable. Moreover, the rules related to the perennial pension plan also provide for a change in rate interest in the case of fixed deposits.
The counsel for the complainant produced judgment of Honourable the National Consumer Disputes Redressal in Life Insurance Corporation vs Consumer Welfare Association & on 11 December 2018. (I(2019) CPJ 285(NC).
In 2010 (7) Supreme 83 M /s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in which Honble Apex Court observed as under:
"24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”
The Honourable Supreme Court in Sangrur Sales Corporation v.United India Insurance Company on 17 January, 2020.2020(2)KHC 244(SC) held that
“10. It is well-settled that in the event that the two constructions are possible or in the event of an ambiguity, that construction which is beneficial to the insured should be accepted consistent with the purpose for which the policy was taken, namely to cover the risk on the happening of a certain event. [See in this context, the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co Ltd v Pushpalaya Printers.’’
The counsel for the complainant submitted that on the last page of Exhibit, A-2, it is clearly written that the scheme is aimed at providing income for the entire life span after retirement. Believing the assurance given in Exhibit A-2 the complainant deposited Rs.2,44,635/- on 12.10.2006. But the opposite party refused to give interest after 12.10.2016. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practices. The complainant is entitled to get 13% interest for her entire life period.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
The Commission upon examination of all documents produced from either side and on making a thorough probe into the points of arguments of either side and on the strength of the orders of the Apex Court in similar circumstances found that there is merit in the complaint and hence the complaint is partly allowed.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
i. The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.2,44,635/- (Rupees two lakh forty four thousand six hundred thirty five only) to the complainant which is deposited by the complainant as per Receipt No. 397569 dated 12/10/2006 along with the interest due on the amount till the date of order.
ii. The Opposite Party shall pay the complainant Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the opposite party.
iii. The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 31st day of January, 2023. Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the Term Deposit Receipt issued by the opposite party dated 12-10-2006.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of Brochure
Exhibit A-3: Copy of letter received from the opposite party
Exhibit A-4: Copy of letter received from the opposite party
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Exhibit B-1: Copy of letter issued to the complainant
Exhibit B-2: Copy of Terms and condition of Perennial Pension Plan
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 711/2016
Order Date: 31/01/2023
