(Delivered on 07/01/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.         Appellant- The Khamgaon Urban Co.Op. Bank Ltd. has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26/07/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati in Consumer Complaint No. 96/2017 whereby the  learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati  had allowed  the complaint  of the respondent  and directed  the appellant to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest  at the rate of 8% p.a. from 01/01/2017. (Appellant and respondent shall hereinafter be referred as per their original  nomenclature)

2.         Short facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under,

            Complainant–Mr. Ninad Mahendra Kale was resident of Akola. O.P.- The Khamgaon Urban Co.Op. Bank Ltd.  is Multistate  Co-operative  Bank  and is doing  business  of  Banking and allied business  activity. The O.P. –Bank  has introduced  one  “Shishu Surabhi Deposit Scheme”  whereby  if any  one invest  Rs. 5,000/- then  after 20 years  the depositor  was entitled  to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant was the member of the O.P-Bank since 1997. On 01/01/1997 complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in “Shishu Surabhi Deposit Scheme” for the period of 20 years and the period ended on 01/01/2017. The complainant was entitled to sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the assurance  given by the O.P. but the O.P. has failed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per assurance. On the contrary, the O.P.  has informed the complainant that the interest  would be paid  to the complainant  as per reduced  rate.  The complainant  has alleged that  he had also deposited  the sum of Rs. 48,812/- and another  Rs. 8,131 and complainant  was entitled to total  sum of Rs. 1,69,777/- from the O.P. but the O.P. paid only  sum of Rs. 1,24,054/- on 08/02/2017. The complainant then demanded the balance amount of Rs. 45,723/- but the O.P. refused to pay the amount and thereby O.P.-Bank has indulged in an unfair trade practice. The complainant had also issued notice to the O.P.-Bank on 02/03/2017 through advocate but  there was no response and so   the complainant  was constrained to file the present complaint  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati.

3.         O.P.-Bank appeared and resisted  the complaint  by filing written version  on record. O.P.  has admitted  that  the complainant  had deposited  amounts as alleged   in “Shishu Surabhi Deposit Scheme” and also  the O.P. has  categorically  denied   that  it  had given any assurance  to the complainant  that  the complainant  get  total  amount of Rs. 1,66,777/-. On the other hand, the O.P. had made it clear that the amount kept by the complainant would be subject to interest as per rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India. The O.P. has contended that the amount payable to the complainant as per the payment of Rs. 48,812 was paid to him on 08/02/2017. The O.P. has denied that the amount of Rs. 1,69,777/-  was payable to the complainant.  On the other hand, the O.P. has taken a plea that the interest admissible on “Shishu Surabhi Deposit Scheme”   was regulated by the guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India. At the time when  the complainant  invested  the amount the interest was fixed  at 15.26% but the in the year 2009 as per policy  decision  taken by the Reserve Bank of India interest was reduced  to 9% and this fact was also informed to the complainant.  For the forgoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not tenable in law and deserves to be dismissed with cost.

4.         The  learned  District Consumer Commission, Amravati  thereafter  went through the contents of the complaint, evidence affidavit  and documents  and also evidence affidavit  and documents  filed by the O.P  The learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati  after appreciating  the oral and documentary evidence  adduced on record  came to the conclusion  that the O.P.-Bank had indulged in unfair trade practice  by giving  false assurance  to the complainant. The learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati   also gave a finding that the complainant  was entitled  to sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with  interest at the rate of 8% and further  the complainant  was also entitled  for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental  and physical harassment  and Rs. 2,000/- towards the litigation cost. Accordingly, the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati partly allowed the complaint by judgment and order dated 26/07/2018.  Against this order dated 26/07/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati the present appellant has come up in appeal.

5.         After filing of the present appeal due notice was issued to the respondent/complainant and same was duly served to the respondent/complainant. Respondent/complainant failed to appear despite due and proper service and so the appeal has proceeded exparte against the respondent.

6.         We have heard Mr. D. M. Shrimali, learned advocate for the appellant.   At the outset  Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate for the appellant  has contended before us  that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati has not properly  appreciated  the  evidence  in proper perspective and  therefore has arrived  at findings which  are erroneous  in nature. Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate has submitted that the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati had not properly examined the copy of receipt of Rs. 5,000/- produced by the respondent /complainant and other  receipts . It is submitted by Mr. D.M. Shrimali, advocate  for the appellant  that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati had not taken into consideration   the fact that  the amount  deposited with the O.P.- Bank by the various  customers  is always  subject to  rate of interest  which is  granted as per directions  and guidelines  given by the Reserve Bank of India and same  were  binding on  all the banks including  the present  O.P- Bank. Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate has pointed out that  in the case of the  respondent /complainant   also  though  the receipt was issued  for Rs. 5,000/- on the  reverse of the receipt  it was specifically  mentioned that  the rate of prevailing  interest  payable  on the deposit  of the complainant  was subject  to the interest  fixed  and as per directions of the Reserve Bank of India but this  fact was not  taken  into consideration  by the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati.  Further  on the  application  under which  deposit  was made   one condition  was printed  that  the interest  payable on  “Shishu Surabhi Deposit Scheme”  was subject  to the interest  as directed  by the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the O.P. being a Multistate Co-operative Bank was governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act and as per Section 35-A the RBI was empowered to give directions.  Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate has pointed out that on 07/01/2009 one Circular was issued by the Reserve Bank of India whereby it was informed to the bank that the financial position of the O.P.-Bank was not satisfactory  and directed the bank to take steps by repaying high cost Shishu Surabhi Deposit. Copy of this circular dated 07/01/2009 has  also be placed on  record  along with  copy of Banking Regulations Act. Perusal of the copy of the Circular dated 07/01/2009  itself shows that  the name of the Khamgaon Urban Co.Op. Bank Ltd. was included in the list of institution and directions were given for repayment of high cost Shishu Surabhi Deposit.  As per the said letter the rate of interest of Shishu Surabhi Deposit Scheme was reduced from 15.26% to 9%.  Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate  for the appellant has submitted that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati had not taken  this aspect in to consideration. We have gone through the copy of judgment and order dated 26/07/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati wherein the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati has observed that  the said circular  cannot be  part of the agreement.  Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate  has submitted  that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati has committed  an error in not considering the  guidelines  and circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 07/01/2009 which  were  very much  binding on  all the banks including the O.P.-Bank.   Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate  has submitted that  in pursuance  to the  directions  given by the Reserve Bank of India  the O.P.-Bank had  issued notice  to all the depositors  including  the respondent /complainant  on 15/05/2009 informing that  the  O.P. –Bank  would be paying interest  under Shishu Surabhi Deposit Scheme at the rate of 9% instead of 15.26% from 01/06/2009.  Complainant was  informed by letter which was  sent  under Certificate of Posting  and copy of the same is also  placed on record but the same was not  taken  into consideration.

7.         During the course of arguments Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon one case of Navdeep Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Acharya Maharaj Shree Tejendra Prasad Ji Devendra Prasadji Pande, reported in 1995 CJ (NCDRC) 379. In that case also the facts were quite similar as the State Commission had granted relief to the complainant by payment of amount with interest at 12% from the date of maturity. It was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that the appellant bank was bound by the directives of the Reserve Bank of India and therefore, was  no guilty for  deficiency in service when it did not make payment because of  the directives of the Reserve Bank of India. Further Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate has also relied on another judgment in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Vs. Rishikesh Prabhakar Kulkarni, reported in 1998 CJ(Bom)265 and the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Klebert Pierre, reported in 2002 CJ (Trib)1202. In these ` cases also the  Hon’ble National Commission   observed  that  the bank could not be faulted  for reducing  the rate of interest  to the extent of interest prescribed by the Reserved Bank of India.

8.         On the  basis of  aforesaid  facts and law it was  submitted by Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate  for the appellant  that  the observations made by the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati that  the agreement   with the respondent /complainant was  binding on the parties and appellant  are not correct. According to  Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate for the appellant  the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati had not taken into  consideration  the  conditions noted  at the  foot note at the bottom of application  as well as   conditions printed  on the back  side of the receipt and has wrongly  observed that  the O.P. –Bank had indulged in unfair  trade practice by not awarding  the proper  interest.  Mr. D.M. Shrimali, learned advocate for the appellant  has further submitted that  the said findings given  by the learned  District Consumer Commission, Amravati were not sustainable  in law and so the order passed by the  learned  District Consumer Commission, Amravati dated  26/07/2018 deserves to be set aside.  We do find considerable force in this contention in the light of law laid down on this aspect by the Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court and so we hereby set aside the order dated 26/07/2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Amravati by allowing the appeal. We therefore, proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Appeal is hereby partly allowed.

ii.          Order  dated 26/07/2018  passed by the  learned  District Consumer Commission, Amravati is       set aside.

iii.         Complaint  filed by the complainant  hereby stands dismissed. .

iv.        No order as to costs.

v.         Copy of order be furnished to both of parties, free of cost.