FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

1)

  First Appeal No.651 of 2018                                 

Date of Institution  :     14.11.2018

Order Reserved on:     02.05.2019

Date of Decision     :    07.05.2019

Union Bank of India, Tara Villa Building, The Mall, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager.

….Appellant/Opposite party

Versus

1.      Surinder Kumar Arora, son of SH.Harbans Lal,

2.      Usha Arora, wife of Sh.Surinder Kumar Arora,

          Both residents of House No.70, Model Town, Ferozepur City.

…..Respondents/complainants

First Appeal against the order dated 20.09.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.

Present:-

          For the appellant       :   Sh.Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent   :   Sh.Raman Goklaney, Advocate

AND

2)

  First Appeal No.652 of 2018                                 

Date of Institution  :     19.11.2018

Order Reserved on:     02.05.2019

Date of Decision     :    07.05.2019

Union Bank of India, Tara Villa Building, The Mall, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant/opposite party

Versus

1.      Usha Arora, wife of Sh.Surinder Kumar Arora,

2.      Surinder Kumar Arora, son of Sh.Harbans Lal,

         Both residents of House No.70, Model Town, Ferozepur City.

…..Respondents/Complainants

First Appeal against the order dated 20.09.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.

Quorum:- 

                    Mr. J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member                                 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant       :   Sh.Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent   :   Sh.Raman Goklaney, Advocate

RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL,  MEMBER

          This order will dispose of above mentioned both the appeals filed by the opposite party/respondent under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”), as the appeals challenging the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short ‘District Forum’). The controversies involved in both the appeals are same.  The facts are taken from F.A.No.651 of 2018.

2.      The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by District Forum, Ferozepur, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay interest on DRCs in question at the rate of 10.9% per annum as agreed. Opposite party was further directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount so calculated less paid by the opposite party and was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

          It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainants deposited Rs.1 crore in the shape of Deposit Re-investment Certificates with opposite party on 12.12.2011 for a period of 60 months.  The opposite party agreed to pay interest at the rate of 10.90% to the complainants and the total amount payable comes to Rs.1,71,20,758/-.  The due date of payment was fixed as 12.12.2016.  The complainants also deposited another amount of Rs.1 crore on the same rate of interest on 12.12.2011 under the same scheme.  In this also, the amount of Rs.1,71,20,758/- was payable on 12.12.2016. The complainants further deposited Rs.25 lacs in the same scheme on 12.12.2011 for 60 months on the agreed interest @ 10.90% per annum and the total amount payable to the complainants comes to Rs.42,80,190/-. The due date for payment was 12.12.2016. Similarly, the complainants deposited further amount of Rs.25 lacs in the same scheme on 12.12.2011 for 60 months on the agreed interest @ 10.90% per annum and the total amount payable to the complainants is Rs.42,80,190/-. The due date for payment was 12.12.2016. On 12.12.2016 at the time of maturity, the opposite party refused to pay the interest at the rate of 10.90% per annum. An application dated 13.12.2016 was submitted by the complainants to the opposite party and mailed to its superior office on 14.12.2016. Another letter dated 08.03.2017 was also written to the Ombudsman for redressal of the grievance.  The complainants number of times requested the opposite party to make the payment, but the opposite party put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainants filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed that the complainants are entitled to recover Rs.5,33,602/- against Certificate No.6456647, Rs.5,33,602/- against certificate No.64546646, Rs.82,567/- against Certificate No.6456634 and Rs.82,567/- against Certificate No.6456645 totaling Rs.12,32,337/- from the opposite party along with compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

4.         Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and is misuse of process of law and has been filed by the complainant in order to harass the opposite party. The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present complaint. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as he has already availed the remedy by filing the complaint before Banking Ombudsman, where his complaint has been rejected.  The complainant has also not come to the court with clean hands and concealed the material facts.  The complainant was Ex.staff member of the bank and was well conversant with the rules and regulations of the Bank and well conversant with the applicable rate of interest on DRC/FDR. It was further contended that the applicable rate of interest is 9% as per Bank guidelines as both these deposits falls in the interest slab of Rs.15 lacs to Rs.1 crore.  The DCR’s/FDR’s were opened in the name of complainant S.K.Arora as first holder and was treated as staff account and hence 1% additional interest was paid as per banking guidelines.  Further 0.50% additional interest is payable to the complainant as Senior Citizen. Hence, the interest applied in these two DRC’s/FDR’s was 10.50%.  In the remaining two DCR’s for Rs.1,00,00,000/- each the rate of interest payable is 8.75% as both these deposits falls in the interest slab of Rs.1 Crore and above and the same benefit of interest is given as given in the previous DRC’s / FDR’s. As such, the rate of interest comes to Rs.10.25%. The rate of interest 10.90% written on the deposit receipts is a clerical error which needs to be rectified and the complainant cannot claim the same. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to Rs.12,32,337/- as difference of interest. Also, in the complaint, there are complicated questions of law and facts which requires voluminous evidence for determination and cannot be decided in a summary procedure.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits.

5.         The parties produced the evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel appearing on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.

6.      Notice of this appeal was issued to respondents being complainants. The respondent appeared through their counsel on 04.02.2019.

7.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

8.         Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party argued that the order passed by the District Forum is against the facts and law. Also the evidence produced on the record have been misread by the Forum. The District Forum has not considered the relevant fact that the appellant has categorically stated in their reply to the complaint that the rate of interest 10.90% mentioned in the DRC/FDR was due to clerical error and which needs to be rectified. The complainant cannot claim the interest against the rules and guidelines of the Bank. The District Forum has wrongly concluded that the deficiency of the service on the part of respondent while not paying the interest at the rate of 10.9% to the complainants whereas actual rate of interest was 10.25% for two DRC’s of Rs.1,00,00,000/- deposit and 10.50% for two DRC’s of Rs.25,00,000/- There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party and prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum.

9.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/complainants argued that there is no material irregularity and illegality in the order of the District Forum.  The District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainants by fully examining the record. The 10.90% interest has been allowed as mentioned on the DRC’s.  Also maturity value has been calculated with 10.90% interest and the same is clearly mentioned on the DRC’s.  The Branch Manager vide his e-mail dated 14.12.2016 has accepted and recommended to pay the interest rate as mentioned on quoted hard copies. The order passed by the District Forum is a well reasoned and justified order and there is no need of any interference in it. The appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party be dismissed.

10.       Admittedly, the appellant-Bank issued four numbers fixed deposit receipts to the complainants on 12.12.2011 with the following clear details:-

11.       At the time of maturity of the above deposit receipts, the system of the appellant-Bank showed rate of interest at the rate of 10.25% instead of 10.90%.  The complainants requested the Bank to pay interest at the rate of 10.90% as mentioned in the deposit receipts vide Ex.C-6.  The Branch Manager of the Bank vide Ex.C-7 on 14.12.2016 vide e-mail to their Ludhiana Office recommended to pay the amount of DRCs as per the hard copies maturity value.  He further clarified to the higher office that the concerned clerk has also clarified that hard copies of DRCs were issued after preparation of DRC in the system and same maturity value was quoted in the hard copies. He further stated that they have checked at their end interest menu and this menu was modified at Central Office Level by G. Naga Subramanium on 21.12.2011 verified by the Branch Manager. Whereas, DRC’s were issued on 12.11.2011. Therefore, interest rate as on 12.11.2011 is applicable and not of 21.12.2011. 

12.       In view of the above, it is very much clear that the DRCs were issued after scrutiny at the level of the Branch Manager, so the appellant-Bank cannot refuse the payment of the DRCs maturity value as per the value written on the various DRCs.

13.       Sequel to the above, the appeal filed by the appellant/ opposite party is dismissed being devoid of merits.

14.       The appellant/opposite party had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the respondents/complainants, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.

F.A. No.652 of 2018

15.       In this case also, the complainants/respondents have deposited Rs.1 crore in the shape of Re-Investment Certificates with the opposite parties on 12.12.2011 for the period of 60 months at the rate of 10.90% per annum.  The amount payable after completion of the period comes to Rs.1,71,20,75/-.  The due date for payment was 12.12.2016. They deposited anoth amount of Rs.50 lacs in the same scheme on 12.12.2011 at the same rate of interest for the same period of 60 months. At the end of the period i.e. on 12.12.2016, the total amount payable to the complainants comes to Rs.85,60,379/-. Rest of all the other contentions are same as averred in F.A. No.651 of 2018.

16.       Upon notice, appellant/opposite party appeared before the District Forum and filed its reply on the similar lines as filed in another complaint.

17.       The parties produced the evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel appearing on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/opposite party.

18.       Notice of this appeal was issued to respondents being complainants. The respondent appeared through their counsel on 04.02.2019.

19.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

20.       The counsel for the appellant during arguments raised the issue of first named complainant Smt. Usha Arora that she is not ex-staff of the Bank so the interest rate applicable to the Bank staff cannot be applied.  As the issue has been raised at the time of maturity of DRCs on 12.11.2016 cannot be accepted.  The appellant Bank must have taken this point at the time of issue of DRCs on 12.11.2011.  Moreover, the Branch Manager, in his communication to the higher officials on 14.12.2016 (Ex.C-18) has endorsed the statement of Mr.Arora that special rate was quoted for the DRCs at the time of opening of these DRCs. Therefore, the plea taken by the appellant is not tenable. Rest of arguments raised by the counsel for the parties is same as raised in the F.A. No.651 of 2018. 

21.       In view of the decision of the appeal bearing F.A. No.651 of 2018, this appeal is also dismissed being devoid of merits.

22.       The appellant/opposite party had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the respondents/complainants, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.

23.       Arguments in these appeals were heard on 02.05.2019 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the orders be communicated to the parties, as per rules.

24.    The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                          (J.S.KLAR)

                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                          (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL)

                                                          MEMBER 

May 07, 2019                                               

parmod