3/17/23, 9:09 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/2020
( Date of Filing : 01 Jul 2020 )
 
1. Sri Saurav Jyoti Singha
R.K Mission Road, Silchar.
Cachar
Assam ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Allahabad Bank, Represented by its Chairman
2 N.S Road, Kolkata-700001.
West Bengal
2. Allahabad Bank, Represented by its Regional Manager
G.S Road, Opp. Bora Service, Ullubari, Guwahati- 781007
Kamrup
Assam
3. Allahabad Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager.
Hospital Road, Silchar.
Cachar
Assam ............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samarjit Dey PRESIDENT
  Kamal Kumar Sarda MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 25 Feb 2022
Final Order / Judgement
JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                                                          The case of the complainant , in brief, is that  the

complainant had subscribed family welfare scheme of  Opposite Party  Allahabad Bank of India
at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for 12 months on 17/04/1998 vide Account   Folio No. 368/1. 
The O.P.  also issued certificate vide  Receipt No.-  584104/FW/620 promosing to pay an
amount of Rs.24,602/- to the complainant on  09/03/2019 as maturity value.  That the
complainant paid  monthly instalment of Rs.100/-  for 12 months according to the terms of the
scheme.      Subsequently after the scheme became matured the complainant submitted the
original certificate to the O.P.  No.-3 ,  the Branch Manager,   Allahabad Bank of India, 
Dudhpatil Branch, Silchar.      But   after awaiting  long time on 06/06/2020  the complainant
received  only  an amount of Rs.8,990/- against the said scheme through his S/B account lying
with the     O.P.  instead of Rs.24,602/-.  Thereafter  the  complainant visited O.P.  no.3  who
handed over a letter dated  17/02/2020  and  told that the complainant is entitled to the amount
of Rs.8,990/- only against his said scheme.  According to the complainant, he is entitled to get
the amount of Rs.24,602/- against his family welfare scheme and  by not paying the assured
about:blank 1/4
3/17/23, 9:09 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

amount the  O.P.  has caused disservice to him and  has  also caused mental pain and agony  as
well as financial loss for which the  O.P.  is liable to compensate the complainant.  Under the
circumstan    ces the complainant has  prayed for passing an award of Rs.15,612/-  being the
remaining maturity value  and for further payment of  interest and cost of the case etc.

                                             The O.Ps.  contested the case and filed written statement  stating ,
interalia, that   there is no   cause or  cogent reason for filing this complaint, that the claim is
barred by limitation etc.  It is stated that the Special Term Deposit Receipt ( here-in-after called
“the STDR” for brevity’s sake )   of the complainant under Family welfare Deposit Scheme is
concerned it was introduced by the O.P.  Bank to raise fund from the consumers and the
commitment to refund the money was subject to one of the conditions that the rate of interest
payable on the deposit was subject to  the directives that might be issued by the Reserve  Bank
of India from time to time.  So the payment of Rs.24,602/- as maturity value on 09/03/2019 
was  quite  conditional  and not absolute.  It is further stated that the rate of interest payable
under the STDR was repeatedly reduced by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the
total maturity value on the  Receipt stood to Rs.8990/-  as on 09/03/2019  and the said amount
was paid to the complainant directly to his S/B  account.   It has been claimed by the  O.P.   bank
 that had the  initial rate of interest been not changed by the RBI,  the  O.P. bank could have paid
the original maturity value.  So, according to the  O.P. bank, they  have not caused any
disservice to the complainant.   Under the circumstances the  O.Ps. have prayed for dismissing
the complaint.

                                       In  support of  his claim the complainant has submitted his evidence on
affidavit  and exhibited some documents.  On the other hand, the  evidence of  O.P.  no.-3   the 
Branch Manager has been submitted by way of affidavit from the O.P.  side .  Both parties have
submitted  respective written argument.  In addition  oral argument put forward by the learned
counsels of the respective parties was also heard.  Perused the entire evidence on record.

                                              The evidence of PW-1 , the complainant , is that  he had subscribed

family welfare scheme of the  O.P.  at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for 12 months on
17/04/1998  vide  Account and Folio No. 368/1.  On issuance of certificate vide  Receipt No.
584104/FW/620 the  O.P. promised to pay the amount of Rs.24,602/- as  maturity value on
09/03/2019  against the said scheme.  Further contention of PW-1 is that  he diligently paid the
monthly instalment of Rs.100/- for 12 months according to the terms of the scheme. 
Subsequently, according to PW-1,  as the  scheme became matured  he submitted the original 
certificate  to the  O.P.  No.-3  and after long passage  of time  on  06/06/2020  an amount of
Rs.8,990/- was paid  through his  Savings  Account  instead of  his entitled maturity  amount of
Rs. 24,602/-.  It has been claimed by PW-1 that as the O.P.  issued family welfare  scheme to
him  and  received  amount  of Rs.1200/-   so   it  is their obligation to  make payment of the
entitled amount on the date of maturity.  Further claim of  PW-1  is that non-payment of entitled
amount by the O.P.  has caused  disservice to him alongwith  mental pain, agony, sufference and 
financial loss.  To substantiate his claim the  complainant  has submitted in the case  Ext.-1 
copy of certificate    issued on 17/04/1998  and Ext.-2    the statement of accounts   dated
17/02/2020  issued by the Branch Manager  of  O.P.  bank.  On the other hand, the evidence of 
the O.P.  No.-3  i.e., D.W.-1  is that as far as  the special term deposit receipt ( in short  STDR ) 
of the complainant under Family Welfare  Deposit Scheme is concerned  it was introduced by
the  O.P.  bank to raise fund from the consumers  and the commitment to refund the money was
subject to  one of the  conditions that the  rate of interest payable on the deposit  was subject to
the directives  that might be issued by the Reserve  Bank of India  from time to time  which was
accepted by the complainant.  D.W.-1  has  exhibited the photocopy of the said  STDR as  Ext.-
about:blank 2/4
3/17/23, 9:09 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

A  containing the condition overleaf.  So, according to  D.W.-1,  the payment of Rs.24,602/-  as
maturity value  on  09/03/2019 was quite conditional and not absolute.  It has been further stated
by  D.W.-1   that  the rate of interest payable  under the  STDR was repeatedly reduced by the
Reserve Bank of India from time to time  and the total maturity value on the receipt stood  to
 Rs.8990/-  as  on  09/03/2019 and the said amount was  paid to the complainant by crediting his
Savings Bank account. DW-1  has also exhibited the  photocopy of the statement of account  as 
Ext.-B .  According to  DW-1 ,  had  the initial rate of interest been not changed by the  RBI, the
O.P.  Bank could have paid the  original maturity value.  Further  contention of DW-1 is that the 
STDR  matured on 09/03/2019 but the complainant presented it for encashment on 06/06/2020
and accordingly payment was made to him  on 06/06/2020 with  simple interest @ 3.5% per
annum for the overdue period as per the deposit policy of the Bank  of 2018-19  communicated
to the  O.P.  under Instruction  Circular No. 16395/Dev/2018-19/82 dated 22/03/2019 by the
Planning and Development Department of the Bank.  It is further stated that the rate of interest
applied in the STDR  from time to time on the basis of the occassional revised rate of interest on
Domestic Term Deposits fixed by the authority of the  Bank under Instruction  Circular  No.
9918/Dev/2007-08/102  dated  05/02/2008 and Instruction Circular  No. 15511/IRM/2017-
18/36  dated 26/02/2018 acting upon the  RAPO rate and Reverse RAPO  rate of the  RBI.  The 
DW  has  submitted  the on-line copy of the Instruction Circular No.16395/Dev/2018-19/82
dated 22/03/2019  as Ext.-C  ,  the on-line copy of the Instruction Circular No.9918/Dev/2007-
08/102 dated   05/02/2008  as   Ext.-D  and   the on-line copy of the Instruction Circular
No.15511/IRM/2017-18/36 dated     26/02/2018  as  Ext.- E.  The DW  has also exhibited the
copy of the RBI  Circular on RAPO Rate  and Reverse RAPO  Rate applicable during the
relevant period of payment of interest in the STDR as Ext.-F.  It has been claimed by the DW
that  the O.P.  has not caused any disservice to the complainant.  Hence the case of the
complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost to the  O.P.

                                                 The claim of the complainant as reveals from his evidence is that
 he had subscribed family welfare scheme of the  O.P.  at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for 12
months on 17/04/1998  vide  Account and Folio No. 368/1 and  on issuance of  Ext.-1 certificate
vide  Receipt No. 584104/FW/620 the  O.P. promised to pay  an amount of Rs.24,602/- as 
maturity value on 09/03/2019  against the said scheme.  As such ,according to PW-1,  on
maturity the  O.P.  Bank is liable to pay to him the assured amount of Rs.24,602/-.  Though  the 
DW in his respective evidence has admitted the fact that  Ext.-1 Receipt was issued by the O.P. 
Bank and though the said receipt shows that on maturity on 09/03/2019 the complainant  is
entitled to get  an amount of Rs.24,602/-  but it is stated  that  the same was quite conditional
and not absolute.  According to the DW, the commitment to refund the money was subject to 
one of the  conditions that the  rate of interest payable on the deposit  was subject to the
directives  that might be issued by the Reserve  Bank of India  from time to time  which was
accepted by the complainant.  D.W.-1  has  exhibited the photocopy of the said  STDR as  Ext.-
A  containing the condition overleaf.   From  Ext-A  the photocopy of the STDR receipt  and
Ext.-1  STDR  receipt are same  and  and it is not disputed.  On  perusal of the said receipt it
clearly reveals that the assurance or promise to pay  the mature amount was subject to condition 
and  on the overleaf of the said receipt  it has been clearly mentioned that one of the condition
is  that the rate of interest payable on this deposit is subject to the directives that may be issued
by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. From the exhibited papers of the O.P. side  it
also further reveals that  the rate of interest  has become  much less that the rate of interest that
prevailed  during the period  when the Ext.-1  was issued to the complainant.  Under the
circumstances, we find force in the  claim of  O.P.  Bank that payment  of the maturity amount 
as mentioned in Ext.-1 ( Ext.-A)  Receipt was conditional. 

about:blank 3/4
3/17/23, 9:09 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

                                         PW-1 has  submitted Ext.-2  Statement of Accounts in respect of the 

aforesaid STDR and has claimed that the O.P.  Bank handed over the same to him.  As reveals
from the record the  O.P.  has not denied issuance of  Ext-2 .  Perusal of Ext.-2  reveals that  the
complainant has been paid  interest @ 7.50%  on the deposit wef.17/04/2008 to 18/04/2018 and
it further reveals from the record that the said rate of interest was applied as per Ext.-D  Circular
of the O.P.  bank regarding  revision on interest rates on Domestic Term Deposit.  At the rate of
7.50%  interest has been calculated on the deposit for the period stretching for about ten years.
As such as per

Ext. –D chart of interest, according to us, the complainant is entitled to get interest on the
deposit at the rate of 8.75% which is the highest rate.

From the above it also has come out that some sort of disservice has been caused to the
complainant by the O.P-Bank which has compelled him to come to this Commission for
redress and as such it is quite understandable that the complainant suffered mental pain,
agony and harassment.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the O.P No.3-Bank is liable to
pay interest at the rate of 8.75% on the deposit of the concerned STDR w.e.f. 17/04/2008
to 16/04/2018 alongwith the amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only for mental
pain, agony etc. and an amount of RS.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards cost of
litigation to the complainant and it is ordered accordingly. As the amount will increase
due to calculation of interest @ 8.75% so naturally total interest paid for the period
17/04/2018 to 16/04/2019 will increase and it is ordered for payment by O.P No.3
accordingly. It is also ordered that the O.P No.3 Bank shall further pay interest w.e.f.
17/04/2019 till today as per prevalent simple rate of interest of the Bank on the excess
amount which the complainant will be entitled to get. The entire amount shall be payable
within a period of 60 (Sixty) days from today otherwise interest@ 9% will accrue on the
amount from today till payment.

With the above direction and relief the case stands partly allowed on contest.

Given under the hand and seal of this Commission on this 25th day of February,
2022.Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Samarjit Dey]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Kamal Kumar Sarda]
MEMBER
 

about:blank 4/4