MANAGER, CANARA BANK AND ORS Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC:26/2008 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragode. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Canara Bank, Kanhangadu Branch in reducing the rate of interest from 13% to 12% and thereby claimed a sum of Rs. 55,843/ - as the loss suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service on their part. They contended that the rate of interest for fixed deposits over 3 years were reduced to 12% from 14/7/1997 as per RBI guidelines and that the Kamadhenu Fixed Deposit Receipt issued to the complainant was due to a mistake and the said mistake was corrected within one year of deposit after duly intimating the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE the Forum below Ext. A1 fixed deposit receipt was marked on the side of the complainant and B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite parties. After hearing both sides, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:30th July 2008 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 55,843/ - to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment with cost of Rs. 2000/ -. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued for the position that the rate of interest was reduced from 13% to 12% by virtue of the guideline issued by Reserve Bank of India and the said matter was informed the complainant. He relied on B2 circular dated:11/7/1997 issued by the General Manager, Canara Bank Development Section, Bangalore and submitted that the A1 fixed deposit receipt was issued to the complainant by mistakenly showing the rate of interest as 13% instead of 12% and that the said mistake was corrected in the light of the RBI guideline. He relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon ble National Commission,2001 3 CPR 166 and submitted that the reduction of the rate of interest based on RBI guide line can be justified. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below in CC:26/08. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He further submitted that the B2 circular was not sufficient to alter the terms of agreement entered into between the complainant/depositor and the opposite party/bank. He also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank Vs. Veeranna and Others, 2003 AIR(SC) 2122. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. The points that arise for consideration are: -