At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: O.P. Gaggar, Sachindra Karu, Advocates. For the Respondents: ---------
The complainants/ respondent made certain deposits with the petitioner Bank. The deposits were made on 12.12.2011 for a period of five years. The fixed deposit receipts issued to the complainants provided for payment of interest @ 10.9% per annum. However, on maturity of the fixed deposits, the complainants were informed that as per the circular applicable at the relevant time, the interest payable to them was 10.50% per annum in respect of FDs of less than Rs.1.00 crore and 10.25% per annum in respect of FDs of more than Rs.1.00 crore. Since the bank did not pay the interest to them as per the rates recorded in the FDs, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of consumer complaint seeking difference in the amount of interest.
2. The complainant was resisted by the petitioner Bank primarily on the ground that even the offer giving the benefit of additional interest payable to ex-employees and senior citizens, the interest as per the circular issued by the Bank at the relevant time was only 10.25% in respect of FDs above Rs.1.00 crore and Rs.10.50% per annum in respect of FDs below Rs.1.00 crore.
3. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the petitioner bank approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a bonafide mistake in the matter, since, the interest rate applicable on the date of deposit was not updated in the system of the Bank, which led to higher rate being recorded in the FDs. He also submitted that the Bank should not be penalised for the said bonafide mistake on its part.
5. It is an admitted decision that the hard copies of the fixed deposit receipts were issued to the complainants as per the system of the petitioner Bank which showed the same rate of interest which were recorded on the FDs.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the fora below does not call for any interference of this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdictional. Had the prevailing rate of interest been made known to the complainant at the time when the deposits were made, it is quite possible that the may not have kept the deposits with the petitioner Bank and might have kept in a Bank offering higher rate of interest, though the possibility of the complainants making deposits at that applicable rate also cannot be ruled out. However, the Bank was under an obligation to inform the correct rate of interest to the depositors. That having not being done and the bank contrarily undertook to pay the interest @ 10.50 per annum, there is no reasons to allow the petitioner Bank to back out of the said contractual obligation.
7. During the course of the hearing, I specifically asked the learned counsel as to whether the mistake regarding the rate of interest was conveyed to the complainant at any point of time before the FDs matured. The learned counsel fairly submits that though the mistake was detected soon after the FDs were issued, it was not conveyed to the complainant before the FDs were matured. This is yet another deficiency on the part of the petitioner Bank i
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n rendering the services, as soon as the alleged bonafide mistake ought to have been conveyed to the complainant soon after it was detected with an option them to shift the FDs to another bank, if they so desired. 8. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the present revision petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.