AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Taken up through video conferencing .
This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 16.11.2009 of the State Commission in appeal no. 208 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 17.03.2009 of the District Commission in complaint no. 377 of 2008.
Heard the learned counsel for the two sides. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 17.03.2009 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 16.11.2009 of the State Commission and the petition.
The matter relates to undue and unreasonable delay in renewing the fixed deposits of the complainants (the respondents herein) by the bank (the petitioners herein) despite timely request(s) and also regarding the undue and unreasonable delay in paying the maturity values of the said belatedly renewed fixed deposits.
The District Commission passed its Order on contest.
It concluded its appraisal by observing that "- - - It appears that the OPs are still living in the 16th Century and not in 21 st Century using wholly ancient and archaic methods and procedures leading to inefficiency and loss of time and money. The OPs have caused a lot of harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainants who lost more than 1½ years interest on their hard earned deposits. They have not only delayed the renewal of the FDRs for about six months but also not supplied the renewed FDRs to them for more than one year even after renewal of the same. This is grave negligence callous carelessness and gross deficiency in service on their part. Further for the period of 1½ year, which only lapsed due to procedural wrangles, they have not paid a penny of interest which means that amount has been wrongfully and illegally pocketed by the OPs at the cost of the complainants for the simple reason that the entire money of the complainants has remained with the OPs for more than 1½ year in additional to the normal renewal period of FDRs of one year. - - - We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present complaint must succeed in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and we order accordingly. - - -".
And the District Commission made the following award:
We direct the OPs 1 & 3 to do the following:-
Pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period 18.01.2005 to 14.07.2005 on Rs. 80,0000 to each of the three complainants.
Pay interest@ 12% per annum on 85,000/- form 14.07.2006 till 10.08.2007 i.e. the date of payment of the respective amounts to each of three complainants.
Pay Rs. 2000/- which has been deducted by the OPs as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) or in the alternative TDS Certificate in original in respect of TDS be issued to each of three complainants.
To pay Rs. 2000/- as the legal cost of the litigation to each of the three complainants. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 3 within a period of six weeks of the receipt of its certified copy by them, failing which the OPs 1 & 3 shall also pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amounts at Sr. (i) to (iii) in the fore goings from the date of this order till realization in addition to the payments already ordered as above.
The bank preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the case and vide its Order dated 16.11.2009 dismissed the appeal. The State Commission framed three issues and answered the each of the three in favour of the complainants.
Extracts from the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:
We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main issues that need to be gone into are as under:-
The date of renewal of FDRs in the year 2005.
The validity of deduction of Rs. 2,000/- as TDS.
The payment of interest for the last payment of the proceeds of the renewed FDRs.
From the facts of the case as gleaned from the evidence on record, it becomes clear that the complainants vide their renewal applications had asked OPs No.1 to 3 to renew FDRs vide their letters on request dated 17.3.2005, which were admittedly been received by the OP on 21.3.2005. It is also pertinent to mention that earlier, FDRs had matured on 18.1.2005 and therefore, the request for renewal had been made well within the period of three months as stipulated vide Clause No. 7 of the terms and conditions. We are, therefore, in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that the complainants were entitled to interest on the deposited amount from the period 18.1.2005 till the eventual renewal of FDRs on 14.7.2005 was made at the agree rate of FDRs, which in our view has been rightly allowed by the learned District Forum.
Coming to the second issue, OPs have admitted that the deduction of Rs. 2,000/- as TDS had been wrongly made by the OPs and thus, again on this account, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned District Forum ordering the payment of this amount to the complainants.
Now coming to the final issue, admittedly, FDRs were renewed on 14.07.2005 for a further period of one year and the matured value of the renewed FDRs was due to be paid to the complainant on 14.7.06. However, admittedly, this amount was paid to the complainants only on 10.8.07 OPs have not been able to explain any cogent reason for this delay in the payment of the maturity amount to the complainants and thus, we are again in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that the complainant are entitled to receive interest for the period i.e. from 14.7.06 till 10.8 07.
In view of the foregoing analysis, we have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned order is a well reasoned and detailed order, which does not require any interference. Consequently, the appeal filed by OPs No.1 and 3 is dismissed as it lacks merit and the impugned order is upheld.
As such this petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below.
Admitted and proved facts of the case are that the complainants' fixed deposits had matured on 18.01.2005. Request(s) for renewal were made on 17.03.2005 within the period of three months stipulated in the terms and conditions of deposit. The request(s) were received by the bank on 21.03.2005. The bank did not renew the fixed deposits w.e.f. 18.01.2005. It renewed the deposits w.e.f. 14.07.2005 i.e. after over six months of 18.01.2005. As such, the bank denied interest on the fixed deposits from 18.01.2005 to 14.07.2005. Thereafter the maturity values of the belatedly renewed fixed deposits was to be paid to the complainants on 14.07.2006. The bank however paid the maturity values on 10.08.2007 i.e. after over twelve months of 14.07.2006. As such, the bank again denied interest on the fixed deposits from 14.07.2006 to 18.08.2007.
It is manifestly clear that the bank did not renew the fixed deposits at the due time despite timely request(s) (within the period stipulated in the terms and conditions) and thereafter it did not pay the maturity values of the belatedly renewed FDRs to the complainants at the due time. In both instances the period of delay was undue and unreasonable (over six months and over twelve months respectively).
All of this shows poorly on the managerial efficiency of the bank and also displays its perfunctory causal attitude towards its duty and responsibility.
Loss and injury to the complainants is self-evident.
The two fora below have attempted to remedy the wrong, by ordering payment of interest for the respective periods for which it was denied. They have also settled the allied issue of TDS in quite a fair and rational manner, leaving it open to the bank to either pay the deducted amount or to provide certificate(s) of deduction to the complainants. And self-evidently reasonable cost of litigation of Rs.2000/- each has been ordered.
The whole matter, putting it mildly, bespeaks of a sense of unaccountable highhandedness on the part of the bank.
Making a vain attempt to vindicate the bank's deficient conduct, learned counsel for the bank argues that 'Know Your Customer' (KYC) requirements had to be fulfilled, and as they were not forthcoming the same resulted in the delay. We however note that ( inter alia ) this issue has been aptly dealt with by the two fora below. If some procedural requirement, and especially so in respect of old customers who had already made the deposits with the bank in 1999, much prior to the date when the renewal was due in 2005, was to be fulfilled the same could have been undertaken and taken up by the bank in a normal courteous cooperative interactive manner with the complainants in the normal wont of its functioning. It bears significance that it was not the bank's case then, and neither is this its case now, that the complainants were in any manner not compliant with KYC requirements. The requirement was only to obtain their personal details, which could have been expeditiously fulfilled with dispatch in a normal way without impediments or delay and without inflicting loss and injury on the complainants.
Further, for the sake of discussion, if, at the relevant time when the renewal(s) were due, the KYC requirements were not being fulfilled by the complainants to the satisfaction of the bank, nothing prevented the bank from refunding the maturity values of the fixed deposits to the complainants within a reasonable period (reasonable period here would connote a period against which a reasonable man will not normally agitate). But nothing empowered the bank to sit over the matured fixed deposits for an unduly protracted period of over six months, neither renewing, nor refunding, and taking an arbitrary highhanded attitude towards the complainants in the way and manner as has been brought out in the findings of the two fora below.
Additionally, there is no persuasive explanation for thereafter withholding the maturity values of these belatedly renewed fixed deposits for a further unduly protracted period of over twelve months.
Learned counsel for the bank also argues that the bank did not utilize the monies of the fixed deposits, as such it gained nothing from retaining the complainants' monies.
This is a self-defeating argument. In itself it points towards managerial inefficiency, a callous careless attitude towards public monies, causing pecuniary loss both to the bank and to its customers. Unaccountable highhandedness is again evident and writ large on the face of record.
That being as it is, it is open for the bank to recover the pecuniary loss as may have been occasioned from its functionaries responsible. But it cannot be that accountability of its functionaries is ignored, and the customers are put to loss and injury.
Not renewing the fixed deposits for an undue and unreasonably protracted period despite timely request(s) and then not paying the maturity values of the belatedly renewed fixed deposits for a further undue and unreasonably drawn out period clearly falls within the meaning of 'deficiency' as contained in section 2(1)(g) of the Act 1986.
We also note that the complaint was filed in 2008, the District Commission passed its Order in favour of the complainants in 2009, the State Commission passed its Order in favour of the complainants in 2009, the bank invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission in 2009. We have perused the proceedings from 2009 onwards before this Commission and are not appreciative of the way and manner in which this case has been procrastinated for over a decade, till 2021.
To sum up, we find that the State Commission has made an apt appraisal of the issues germane in the matter and passed a well- reasoned Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Commission. We see no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored or erroneously ruled, or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. The award made by the District Commission, as affirmed by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. We find no good ground to interfere in the exercise of this Commission's revisional jurisdiction.
The petition, being misconceived and bereft of worth, being frivolous and vexatious, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner bank in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Commission within four weeks from today.
The award made by the District Commission, as affirmed by the State Commission, is confirmed. The same shall be made good by the bank through its chief executive (its chairman or managing director or the director in-charge of its affairs or the director in-charge of the subject-matter, whichever member of its board of directors he may be) within four weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ' enforcement ' and for ' penalties ', as per the law.
The petitioner bank through its chief executive shall be well advised to look into this matter and ensure accountability and systemic improvements so that such manifest unaccountable arbitrary highhandedness is avoided in future (needless to elaborate, unsavoury elements of corrupt practices are often implicit in such instances).
The learned counsel for the petitioner bank is requested to provide a copy of this Order to the chief executive of the bank most expeditiously.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and also to their learned counsel as also to the chief executive of the petitioner bank as well as to the District Commission most expeditiously. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.