Per Mrs.J.D.Yengal, Hon’ble Member
These appeals since involve identical facts and common question of law are disposed of by this common order.
Facts in brief could be summarized as under:-
The Ajara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (herein after referred as ‘bank’) somewhere in the year 2000, announced a scheme “Pension Aawart Thev Yojana”. Mr. Jagdish C. Dighe, his wife Mrudula and unmarried daughter Parija participated in the “Pension Aawart Thev Yojana” i.e. deposit scheme and, accordingly, each one deposited `3000/- per month for 63 months till the end of 30/06/2005 and an amount of `2,78,670/- is accordingly credited in the respective account of each one of them. It is the grievance of these depositors that as per the scheme, they ought to have received an amount of `3252/- per month by way of monthly pension. The bank did not agree for the same but instead of that offered to pay lump sum amount and, therefore, depositor Jagdish C. Dighe filed consumer complaint no.279/07, his wife Mrudula filed consumer complaint no.280/07 and daughter Parija filed consumer complaint no.276/07 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (‘forum’ in short). By the impugned orders passed in the respective complaints, dated 19/09/2009, the forum partly allowed the consumer complaints and directed the bank to pay monthly pension of `3252/- to each one of the complainants, further directed to pay matured amount of `2,78,760/- to each one of the complainants along with interest @ 7% p.a., also awarded compensation of `10,000/- to each one of the complainant along with cost of `5000/-. Feeling aggrieved by such directions the bank preferred these appeals. Appeal nos.10/817, 10/818 & 10/819 pertains to the impugned orders passed respectively in consumer complaint nos.279/07, 280/07 & 276/07.
At the time of hearing the respondents/org.complainants preferred to remain absent. We heard Mr.S.B.Prabhawalkar-Ld.counsel appearing for the bank in all the appeals. Perused the records.
Here virtually the father Jagdish has invested in his own name as well as in the name of his wife and unmarried daughter in the deposit scheme i.e. “Pension Aawart Thev Yojana” floated by the bank. Referring to the application of opening the deposit accounts in the above referred scheme, it could be seen that the complainants agree to abide by the rules which may be changed by the bank from time to time covering those deposits. Such undertaking is given on 21/03/2000 while opening the deposit accounts. Thereafter as per the resolution passed in its Board of Directors per Resolution no.54 dated 27/07/2002, the bank informed the depositors including the complainants that said scheme of “Pension Aawart Thev Yojana” was to be discontinued and it was further decided to give an option to the depositor either to take back the deposit along with accumulated interest on their maturity or to receive monthly payment by way of pension as per then applicable rate of interest on the accumulated deposit amount. The interest applicable would the rate of interest as may be applicable from time to time. It is stated that the complainants did not exercise their option but as per the reliefs claimed, they were insisting for payment of pension amount @ `3252/- per month.
Since initially they agreed to abide by the changed rules relating to the said deposit made applicable by the bank and since the bank had communicated change in rules giving the option to the depositors including complainants, supra, now the complainants cannot complain about the same and, certainly, they cannot insist upon monthly payment by way of pension at a fixed rate of interest @ 14% p.a. on the accumulated deposit. Since the bank had already communicated to the depositors including the complainant that subject to exercise of the option, either to refund the amount with accumulated interest or to pay interest as per applicable rate from time to time by way of monthly pension, there cannot be any deficiency in service found on the part of the bank. Forum did not consider these aspects while passing the impugned orders and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Impugned orders are also bad in law since with the same stroke of pen it directed to pay monthly pension and at the same time also directed to refund the accumulated amount along with interest. Both directions certainly would not stand together. Depositor can claim either monthly amount of interest by way of pension on the accumulated deposit amount (the interest rate would be as applicable from time to time) or could claim refund of the entire accumulated amount along with interest at the rate applicable on the date of maturity.
Since the scheme of the deposit is already discontinued, we find it not desirable to award monthly amount by way of pension to the complainants considering the fact that complainants failed to exercise their option and since the scheme is discontinued, it is always desirable and to which the bank is willing to refund the entire accumulated amount in the account of each one of the depositors i.e. complainants along with applicable rate of interest from time to time. Such applicable rate of interest and the amount of accumulated deposit is spelt out in para 3 of the operative part of the impugned order. Bank also conveyed their intention to refund the accumulated amount as aforesaid and further conveyed their intention that the amount which they have already deposited before the forum on 30/10/2010 in each one of the consumer complaint be appropriated towards the payment of dues as per the impugned order as modified in these appeals. Pursis is also filed by the bank accordingly.
Since, even though the bank intended to refund the deposit, actually did not tender the amount till the consumer complaint is filed. Hence we find no reason to interfere with the costs of `5000/- awarded by the forum.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
A/10/817
Appeal no.A/10/817 is partly allowed.
Impugned order dated 19/09/2009 is modified.
Direction to pay monthly pension of `3252/- is set aside.
Rest of the order stands confirmed.
As per the pursis filed by the appellant, the amount deposited in the forum at interlocutory stage per direction of this Commission be adjusted towards the dues payable to the respondent/complainant and be paid accordingly to the respondent/complainant.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
A/10/818
Appeal no.A/10/818 is partly allowed.
Impugned order dated 19/09/2009 is modified.
Direction to pay monthly pension of `3252/- is set aside.
Rest of the order stands confirmed.
As per the pursis filed by the appellant, the amount deposited in the forum at interlocutory stage per direction of this Commission be adjusted towards the dues payable to the respondent/complainant and be paid accordingly to the respondent/complainant.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
A/10/819
Appeal no.A/10/819 is partly allowed.
Impugned order dated 19/09/2009 is modified.
Direction to pay monthly pension of `3252/- is set aside.
Rest of the order stands confirmed.
As per the pursis filed by the appellant, the amount deposited in the forum at interlocutory stage per direction of this Commission be adjusted towards the dues payable to the respondent/complainant and be paid accordingly to the respondent/complainant.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 31st March, 2011.
Ms.
