Ravishankar Bhatt Vs. Dena Bank, Through : Branch Manager

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/12/366. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed by the District Forum.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are that : on 23/11/1991, the appellant/complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6,812/- in the respondent/Bank in the name of his minor son Naman Bhatt under Laxmivarsha Jama Yojna. At that time respondent/Bank told the appellant/complainant that rate of interest is 13% p.a. and on the date of maturity i.e. 23.11.1994 the amount payable was Rs.9,999/-. On being asked by the respondent/Bank, that again rate of interest was 13% p.a. the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount for six years. The first maturity amount was Rs. 21,544/- and thereafter reinvestment of the above amount, the maturity amount payable was Rs.46,717/- and thereafter reinvestment of the said amount the maturity amount payable was Rs.1,09,000/-. After maturity , the appellant/complainant went to the respondent/Bank and deposited the Fixed Deposit Receipt, the respondent / bank kept the original FDR with it and intimated the appellant/complainant regarding correct interest and gave him only Rs.58,085/- instead of Rs.1,09,000/- and thus committed deficiency in service. Hence the appellant/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.

3. The respondent/Bank filed written statement before the District Forum and averred that according to the prevailing rate of interest, the rate of interest was modified. For the first investment, the rate of interest on the deposited amount was 13% p.a. for the period from 23.11.1994 to 23.11.1995 and for next six years also the rate of interest was 13% p.a, but during the period 23.11.2000 to 23.11.2006, the prevailing rate of interest was 8.75%, which was effective till 23.11.2006. Thereafter the prevailing rate of interest was 7.25% p.a. According to the prevailing rate of interest the rate of interest was modified and the appellant/complainant is entitled for getting interest which was prevailing at the time of maturity of FDR. Therefore, the appellant/complainant, is only entitled for a sum of Rs.58,085/- and respondent/Bank did not commit any deficiency in service.

4. Learned District Forum, after appreciation of material available before it on record, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.

5. Shri Anurag Thaker, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that due to false assurance given by the employees of the respondent/Bank, the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount in Laxmivarsha Jama Yojna. In the FDR, the rate of interest was mentioned @ 13% p.a. for the period from 23.11.1994 to 23.11.2000 as 13% p.a. and from 23.11.2006 to 23.11.2012 also rate of interest was mentioned as 13% p.a. On being assurance given by the respondent/Bank, that rate of interest will be continued as 13% p.a. on the deposited amount, the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount with the respondent/Bank. Had respondent/Bank intimated the appellant/complainant regarding the modification in the rate of interest and informed that the rate of interest was reduced from 13% p.a. to 8.75%, then the appellant/complainant would not have reinvested the amount, therefore, the appellant/complainant is entitled for interest @ 13% p.a. on the deposited amount and learned District Forum has wrongly disallowed the prayer of the appellant/complainant and dismissed the complaint.

6. Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank supported the impugned order. He argued that according to prevailing rate of interest, which is binding on respondent/Bank as well as the customers, the Bank modified the rate of interest on the deposited amount. Firstly the rate of interest was 13% p.a. and thereafter it was reduced to 8.75% and thereafter 7.25% and the respondent/Bank has rightly reduced the rate of interest and did not commit any deficiency in service and the order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission.

7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.

8. According to the appellant/complainant the original Laxmivarsha Deposit Receipt was deposited by him with the respondent/Bank. The respondent/ Bank told the appellant/complainant that after sometime the appellant/complainant can collect the maturity amount. When appellant/complainant visited the respondent/Bank for collecting maturity amount, then he found that the rate of interest on the deposited amount was corrected by the respondent/Bank without giving any intimation to the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant filed two documents before us. In the back side of the first document it is mentioned thus :

Details of Reinvestment

10. According to the respondent/Bank, the rate of interest was reduced on the basis of the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. On the basis of the Circular, the respondent/Bank reviewed their interest rates structure on the term deposits. However, the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India, does not make it mandatory anywhere that any decision taken by the Bank was retrospective effect. The respondent/Bank was within its right to reduce the rate of interest, but it cannot be applicable to the deposits already made with the respondent/Bank. The term of contract made between the investor and the bank, respondent/Bank cannot be changed retrospectively to the detriment of the investor.

11. In the instant case, the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount on assurance of the employees of the respondent/Bank that the respondent/Bank is offering interest @ 13% p.a. Had the Bank not offered interest @ 13% p.a. perhaps, the appellant/complainant did not reinvest the amount. On being assurance given by the respondent/Bank that the rate of interest was 13% p.a, the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount with the respondent/Bank, but the respondent/Bank on the basis of Circular or instructions issued by the Reserved Bank of India, reduced the rate of interest. Therefore, the appellant/complainant is entitled for adequate compensation. It is obligatory on the part of the respondent/Bank to pay the amount as mentioned in the said FDR.

12. In the instant case, initially the maturity amount was mentioned in the FDR as Rs.1,09,000/- and thereafter it was reduced to Rs.58,085/- and the respondent/Bank only gave a sum of Rs.58,085/- to the appellant/complainant as maturity amount, but the appellant/complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,09,000/-. Therefore the order dated 15.05.2013, passed by the learned District Forum, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

13. Therefore, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant and set aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2013, passed by the District Forum and allow the complaint of the appellant/complainant. We direct the respondent/Bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,000/- to the appellant/complainant within a month from the date of this order. If the respondent/Bank fails to pay the aforesaid amount to the appellant/complainant within stipulated time, then the respondent/Bank, will liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the aforesaid amount. If any amount has already been paid by the respondent/Bank to the appellant/complainant, the same shall be adjusted. No order as to the cost of this appeal.