NOWSHEEN JAHAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-complainant, Nowsheen Jahan and affirming the order of the District Forum which in turn has dismissed her complaint. Complainant's father Dr. M.A. Hamid had a fixed deposit receipt from the Canara Bank. This fixed deposit receipt has been taken by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, on behalf of Dr. Hamid. FDR was taken in 1975 for Rs. 13,000/- and was in the joint name of Dr. Hamid and the petitioner. It was for one year and was payable to either or survivor. At the time the FDR was taken petitioner was minor. She attained majority in 1987. Within one year of taking of the FDR Dr. Hamid unfortunately died. Petitioner a child at that time was unaware of the existence of the FDR. It is only in 1991 that she per chance came to know of the FDR when she was going through the old papers of her father. She then approached the Canara Bank to receive the amount of FDR along with interest accrued thereon. Canara Bank was prepared to give the amount of the FDR with one year interest as there was no request for renewal of the FDR. The FDR was to carry interest @ 9% per annum.

(2.) Complaining deficiency in service petitioner approached District Forum. District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint and as noted above appeal before the State Commission also met the same fate. When the matter came before us we asked the Counsel for the Canara Bank to seek instructions as to why interest at the saving bank rate could not be awarded as the Bank did keep the money all this period. Petitioner could not have renewed the FDR when was minor. She attained majority only in 1987. It was on 19.9.2001 that we required from the Counsel for the Canara Bank to get instructions. Nothing was heard from the Bank and the matter was taken up on 11.1.2002 when it was stated that Counsel was still awaiting instructions from the Canara Bank. We told the Counsel on the next date of hearing whatever instructions he receive, should be stated. Today when the matter was taken up Counsel for the Canara Bank expressed helplessness and wanted more time to get instructions. We cannot permit such type of attitude. There is no dispute to the facts which we have narrated above. The question for consideration is what relief could be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) After hearing the Counsel for the parties we are of the view that petitioner be paid the amount of FDR with interest @ 9% per annum upto 6.1.1987 when the petitioner attained majority as the FDR was taken on 4.1.1975 and therefore, on the amount of Rs. 13,000/- petitioner is entitled to interest at which the Bank gives on its saving bank account which we are informed would be 5% per annum. We order accordingly. Whole of the amount shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today. Petitioner will be entitled to cost which we assess at Rs. 2,500/- payable by the Canara Bank. In case of default, this amount will now carry interest @ 9% per annum. This revision petition is allowed as above. Revision Petition allowed with costs.