STATE BANK OF INDIA vs CHATTISGARH STATE LAGHU VANOPAJ

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Consumer Complaint No. 11/2008 - Chattisgarh State Small Forest (Business & Development Vs. State Bank of Indore by which, while allowing complaint, OP was directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on amount transferred to other account.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was maintaining current account No.53015395443 with OP/appellant from 29.12.2000. From aforesaid complainant''s account OP has withdrawn Rs.58,21,483/- on 1.5.2001 and Rs.7,20,000/- on 14.6.2001 without knowledge and consent of complainant. It was further submitted that on account of bifurcation of States of Madhya Pradesh, audit could not be conducted earlier and audit was conducted in the year 2006 and at that time, complainant came to know that aforesaid amount on aforesaid dates has been withdrawn by OP illegally. On 28.4.2006, 30.5.2006 and 5.6.2006 complainant informed OP about illegal withdrawal and OP by letter dated 19.8.2006 intimated that aforesaid amount has again been credited in complainant''s account. OP did not credit interest on aforesaid illegally withdrawn amount inspite of legal notice. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and submitted that due to human error, by inadvertence, aforesaid amount withdrawn from complainant''s account was transferred in the account of Deputy Director, Urban Administration and as soon as OP came to know about wrong transfer, it was rectified. It was further submitted that there was no provision of paying interest in current account and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Learned State Commission by order dated 25.3.2010 dismissed complaint as barred by limitation. This Commission vide order dated 22.01.2013 allowed Appeal No.126 of 2010 and directed State Commission to treat complaint within limitation and to decide it on merits. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.58,21,483/- from 1.5.2001 to 19.8.2006 and on Rs.7,20,000/- from 14.6.2001 to 19.8.2006 and further allowed Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation against which this appeal has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of no proof of any gain to appellant by transferring this amount to another account and inspite of proof that no interest is payable on current account balance, learned State Commission has committed error in granting interest @ 6% p.a.; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

It is admitted case of the parties that aforesaid amount was lying in complainant''s account and aforesaid amount was withdrawn and transferred by OP in the account of Deputy Director, Urban Administration by mistake and negligence. In such circumstances, negligence on the part of OP is well proved and there canot be two opinions on this finding.

It is also not disputed that as amount was credited in another Government account, i.e, Deputy Director, Urban Administration, OP has not derived any benefit from the amount withdrawn from complainant''s account. It is also not disputed that there is no provision of payment of interest in current account.

Now, the core question to be decided is whether still OP is liable to pay 6% p.a. interest on aforesaid amount as directed by learned State Commission.

It is admitted case of the complainant that complainant came to know about illegal withdrawal only when accounts of complainant were audited in the year 2006. From the year 2001 till audit in the year 2006, complainant has not cared to see entries in the bank statement whereas the complainant must be getting copy of bank statement from OP time to time. In such circumstances, it can very well be inferred that complainant was also negligent in not observing that so much amount has been withdrawn by OP from complainant''s account without his consent. In such circumstances, complainant and OP both are to be held negligent in their functions.

Learned State Commission has allowed 6% p.a. interest whereas no interest was payable in current account balance. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent would have transferred this amount in FDR and would have earned interest. No doubt, had this amount been transferred in FDR, complainant must have earned interest, but complainant has not proved by evidence that earlier complainant got his excess amount transferred in FDRs. Not only this, when complainant himself was equally negligent as observed earlier, complainant was not entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. on balance amount and learned State Commission should have allowed 3% p.a. interest because firstly this much is normally granted on balance in saving bank account and; secondly both parties were equally negligent.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, appeal is to be allowed partly.

Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and order dated 20.2.2014 passed by learned State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 11/2008 - Chattisgarh State Small Forest (Business & Development Vs. State Bank of Indore is partly modified and rate of 6% p.a. interest is substituted by rate of 3% p.a. interest and rest of the order is upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.