M.L Marwah vs Canara Bank

Heard Mr. M.L. Marwah, In person and Mr. Prashant Kumar Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.

This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, dated 01.08.2019, passed in First Appeal No. 248 of 2018 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, dated 26.03.2018, passed in, Consumer Complaint No. 301 of 2015), whereby, the complaint was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay Rs.45000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of the litigation and the appeal was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay (i) interest @ 10.5% per annum on Rs.1943611.02 from 06.09.2014 to 23.01.2015, (ii) difference in amount payable to the petitioner at the agreed rate and the amount actually paid by the respondent, till 06.09.2014, (iii) Rs.45000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain (which included cost of Rs.5000/- awarded by District Forum and cost awarded by District Forum was set aside).

M.L. Marwah (the petitioner) filed Consumer Complaint No. 301 of 2015, for directing Canara Bank (the respondent) to pay (i) Rs.244031/- towards short payment of interest from 06.09.2014 (date of closure) to 06.02.2015 (date of credit of cheque, in his accounts of Rs.1943602.02 and penalty of Rs.19362/-), as per order of Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi. (ii) Balance of Rs.3426/- to be paid on short of interest on cheque dated 19.01.2015, received from Bank. (iii) Rs.50000/- as Compensation of conveyance and other expenses incurred for last eight months and further thereafter in recovering the dues from the Bank, and (iv) Interest @ 10.5% per annum on total amount of Rs297457/- to be recovered, from 06.02.2015 to the date of decision of the case.

It has been stated in the complaint that M.L. Marwah (the complainant) had S/B A/c No.2756101002172 and R/D A/c No. 2756257000068, [All deposit receipts (CPRS) as per annexures-1 to 6], Id. No.15825068- Sr. Citizen, in Branch Patparganj of Canara Bank, from last 10 years. He made complaint against the Branch Manager, Sh. S.K. Bahera, for short payment of Rs.11138/- in R/D A/c No. 2756181000594- of Ms. Kiran, his wife, returned on 02.07.2013. He told his grievance before the Zonal Manager, Delhi Circle, present at the Branch on 06.09.2014. Sh. S.K. Bahera, Branch Manager became annoyed and misbehaved to him and closed his all accounts at 7:27 PM on 06.09.2014. His all funds remained with Canara Bank up to 06.02.2015. He complained to the Head Office of the Bank at Bangalore to reopen his accounts. The Bank did not give a single reply and did not reopen his accounts. He submitted his case before the Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi, for justifying in the matter. The Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi, gave his decision. He directed the Bank either to give 30 days notice, for closing the accounts or interest of notice period of 30 days. Canara Bank, instead of 30 days notice period, paid to him 30 days interest i.e. Rs.15936/- as penalty on 19.01.2015, as per order of Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi. The cheque of Rs.15936/- along with cheque for Rs.1943611.02 (proceeds of all deposits, revalidated on 23.01.2015), were handed over to him on 04.02.2015 and credited in his Account No.50962010017980 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110002 on 06.02.2015, resulting a short payment of Rs.247457/-. Canara Bank refunded his total funds of Rs.1943611.02. Interest was paid on all deposit Receipts up to 06.09.2014 although money remained with the Bank till 06.02.2015 and he was entitled for interest of these periods also. All the deposits were issued @ 10.5% interest and paid @ 8.5% interest. The Bank at the time of closing his account without his consent deducted/charged 2% penalty on premature payments in all deposit receipts although the Bank itself had closed the account and penalty could not be charged. The Bank did not pay .5% interest, payable to senior citizen as per rules. The Bank had committed breach of contract for which the customer should not suffer regarding the interest payable to him. He should be compensated for all the expenses incurred for last eight months and thereafter, if any, for conveyance etc. and recovering the funds. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 27.04.2015.

The Bank did not file written reply before District Forum in spite of service of notice and the case was proceeded ex-parte against the Bank. Ex-parte evidence of the petitioner was recorded. The petitioner filed 31 documentary evidence and his Affidavit of Evidence, in which he had revised his claim to Rs.312613/-.

The District Forum, vide judgment dated 26.03.2018, held that the act of the Bank, in closing the accounts of the petitioner was arbitrary. The Bank, on its own, closed the accounts, as such, penalty charge on premature closure of fixed deposit was not liable to be deducted. The petitioner was a senior citizen, as such, he was entitled to additional interest @ .5% per annum. There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of bank. On these findings, the complaint was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay Rs.45000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of the litigation.

The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as First Appeal No. 248 of 2018) from the aforesaid order. State Commission heard the appeal and vide judgment dated 01.08.2019, held that closer of the fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner prematurely was illegal. Due to which, the petitioner had to suffer loss of interest @ 10.5% per annum for the remaining period of 7 years. As actual payment of the amount of money was done on 06.02.2015 as such the petitioner was entitled for interest from 06.09.2014 to 06.02.2015 @ 10.5% per annum. Interest payable to senior citizen @ .5% per annum, is included in 10.5% per annum. On these findings, the appeal has been allowed and the respondent was directed to pay (i) interest @ 10.5% per annum on Rs.1943611.02 from 06.09.2014 to 23.01.2015, (ii) difference in amount payable to the petitioner at the agreed rate and the amount actually paid by the respondent, till 06.09.2014, (iii) Rs.45000/-as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain (which included cost of Rs.5000/- awarded by District Forum and cost awarded by District Forum was set aside). Hence this revision has been filed.

When the revision was taken for final hearing on 20.10.2021, the petitioner filed a revised claim of Rs.1216111/- (i.e. Rs.247457/- as original claim, Rs.150000/-, as compensation of mental and physical harassment, Rs.263740/- interest from 06.09.2014 to 20.10.2021 and Rs.554914/- as compensation for falling down the rate of interest of the banks). In the revision, the petitioner took ground that State Commission has directed for paying interest from 06.09.2014 to 23.01.2015, although it ought to, up to 01.08.2019, i.e. date of judgment of State Commission. The petitioner invested the amount in Fixed Deposit on the interest payable at the rate of 10.5% per annum and date of maturity was 2021. When the money of the petitioner was returned on 06.02.2015, the interest had gone down to 7% per annum, as such, he suffered loss of interest @ 3.5% per annum.

I have the considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that Canara Bank closed the all the accounts of the petitioner on 06.09.2014 and send a draft of Rs.1943611.02 to the petitioner. The petitioner avoided receiving the draft and payment of this draft has been deliberately delayed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for interest after 06.09.2014 on it. District Forum has not committed any illegality in not awarding interest for the period of 06.09.2014 to 06.02.2015. So far as the interest for notice period is concerned, it has already been directed to be paid by the order of Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi. As the petitioner was not entitled for that amount, as such, I refrain from passing any order in respect of pendent lite interest on Rs. 247457/-.

So far as compensation for breach of contract is concerned, Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 is quoted below:-

Section-73.- Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.- When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the actual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, or to be likely to result from the breach of it.

Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and in direct loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.

The compensation for breach of the contract is payable on the date of breach, according to the market rate at the time of breach of contract. The petitioner was provided interest inasmuch as total deposits were of Rs.1527687/- and he was paid Rs.1943611.02. As per rules of Banks, the interest was paid to the petitioner, which was payable on 06.09.2014.

The petitioner has filed a copy of calculation of interest on page-60 of the revision petition. He has shown total amount as Rs.2008464.02, including interest @ rate of 10.5% along with principal amount to be on 06.09.2014. He has noted that 1% penalty was deducted. Total shortage on this account was Rs.64853/-. In the original complaint, as filed on 27.04.2015, this amount was not claimed. Without amending the complaint, for the first time, in the memorandum of revision, filed on 25.09.2019, the petitioner has raised the ground that he had invested the amount in Fixed Deposit on the interest payable at the rate of 10.5% per annum and date of maturity was 2021. It has been stated that when the money of the petitioner was returned on 06.02.2015, the interest had gone down to 7% per annum, as such, he suffered loss of interest @ 3.5% per annum. In the revised claim as filed on 20.10.2021, Rs.554914/- has been claimed on this account. Under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, this amount cannot be claimed as damages. Further, this claim has become time barred as such no relief can be granted in this respect.

ORDER

The revision has no merit and it is dismissed.