Stanley Lawrence Pereira vs Standard Chartered Bank

V.K. Jain, J

The appellant / complainant had taken four fixed deposits from Grindlays Bank, Cochin, predecessor in interest of the respondent Standard Chartered Bank. He then shifted to Abu Dhabi, where he took a loan from the respondent against pledge of the said fixed deposits. The said loan was followed by a top up loan taken at Abu Dhabi. The said loans having not been paid, the FDRs taken by the complainant / appellant were compulsorily closed by the bank and transferred to its Abu Dhabi Branch. The amount outstanding in the loans was much less than the maturity proceeds of the FDRs. The said amount having not been paid to the complainant / appellant, he approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent.

The State Commission vide impugned order dated 27.10.2012 directed as under:

"In the result, the complaint is allowed as below. The opposite party is directed to furnish detailed statement of accounts relating to the two loans availed by the complainant from the Abu Dhabi Branch upto 26.12.2000 and detailed statement of the amount due as per the four fixed deposits made by him, as on the said date. After adjusting the loan amounts the actual balance not less than Rs.9,83,816.87 (or the actual amount if more) shall be disbursed to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 26.12.2000 till the date of realization on production of documents relating to the identity, proof of signature and address of both the complainant and his son Paul Sajan Pereira. The complainant is allowed to realize Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party and Rs.10,000/- towards costs. The order shall be complied with within one month form the date of this order."

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant / complainant is before this Commission.

A perusal of the Statement of Account filed by the respondent bank would show that as on 31.12.2000, a sum of Rs.2,12,432.35 was payable in one loan account whereas a sum of Rs.1,36,254.09 was payable in the other loan account as on 31.12.2000, after the FDRs were pre-maturely closed and the proceeds were transferred to Abu Dhabi Branch.

A perusal of the letter dated 01.3.2006 sent by the respondent to the Banking Ombudsman would show that a total sum of Rs.57,41,667.42 was the closer amount of the FDRs. This amount was arrived at after ducting 1% pre-mature penalty. In my opinion, since it was the bank which of its own prematurely closed the FDRs, though on account of default on the part of the appellant in the loan account, the said penalty was not deductible. The penalty would have been deductible only if the appellant / complainant himself had asked for prematurely closure of the FDRs. Therefore, the respondent bank was liable to pay a sum of Rs.57,41,667.42 + premature closure penalty, to the complainant / appellant in respect of the FDRs, which she had taken from Grindlays Bank, Cochin. The bank was entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.2,12,432.35 + Rs.1,36,254.09 from the aggregate of Rs.57,41,667.42 + foreclosure penalty.

On the said balance amount interest @ 9% per annum was payable with effect from 26.12.2000 till 20.11.2008, when the respondent bank made a payment of Rs.9,83,816.87 to the complainant / appellant. Thereafter, interest @ 9% per annum is payable on the balance amount, calculated by deducting the amount of Rs.9,83,816.87 from the aggregate of Rs.57,41,667.42 + pre-closure penalty. The interest on the said balance amount with effect from 20.11.2008 shall be payable till the said amount is paid to the complainant / appellant. The payment in terms of this order shall be made within two months form today. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.