STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. REVA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed by State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal Nos.1187-88/2007 in favour Reva Arora and Kamala Chawal, Respondents herein who were the original complainants before the District Forum.

(2.) In her complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant had contended that she had opened a Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account with the Petitioner/Bank in 1991 and since then she has been regularly depositing various amounts on different date in the said PPF account which were also regularly recorded in the pass-book issued to her by the Petitioner/Bank. On 20.09.2000, Petitioner/Bank intimated the Respondent that she had deposited Rs.1,49,000/- which was in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs.60,000/- in each financial year and the Bank was therefore, refunding the excess amount deposited by her had consequently debited the interest amounting to Rs.1,57,849/- for the aforesaid period from her PPF account. Shocked and aggrieved by receipt of this letter since Respondent was not aware regarding the limit on the amount to be deposited each year, she requested the Bank to refund the amount of interest as she had deposited her own money in the account and was, therefore, entitled to the interest on that amount which was lying with the Bank for the period from 1990 to 2000. Since the Petitioner/Bank refused to do so and had never cared to inform the Respondent that excess amounts were being deposited by her and in fact had been crediting the same with interest in her PPF account, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that since the Petitioner/Bank had utilized the money of the Respondent which was refunded only in the year 2000 and has also not given interest for the same, she was entitled to receive Rs.1,57,849/- along with interest @ 21% per annum from the financial year 1990 to 1995 and Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and harassment etc.

(3.) The contentions pertaining to deficiency in service were denied by the Petitioner who stated that in the PPF Pass-book which was issued to the Respondent, it was clearly stated under the heading "Information to the Subscriber" that a subscriber can deposit only Rs.60,000/- annually and therefore, it was for the Respondent to have ensured that an amount exceeding this limit was not deposited. Since the Petitioner/Bank maintains a number of accounts, it was not possible for it to notice in each case that more than the stipulated amount has been deposited, particularly since these amount can be subscribed in multiples of Rs.5 between Rs.100 to Rs.60,000/- in a year. Further, since the PPF is a statutory scheme of the Central Government framed under the provisions of the PPF Act, 1968, the Petitioner/Bank acts only as an Accounts Officer under the Scheme and the money received are immediately forwarded to the Central Government. Since, this is Government moneys and is retained with the Government, Petitioner/Bank as a caretaker does not receive any interest on the money deposited in these accounts. There was thus no deficiency in service and the complaint is misconceived.