LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LIMITED Vs. M REJIDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner bank which was Opposite Party before the District Forum has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 24.07.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry in First Appeal No.11 of 2007 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 22.02.2007 passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.63/2006. Vide its order, the District Forum accepted the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant in terms of the following directions:-

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the respondent-complainant, who is minor girl, namely, M. Rejidha through her father Munusami deposited a sum of ?4,338/- on 28.06.1996 under 'Lakshmi Subhiksha Deposit Plan' with the petitioner bank. The said deposit plan had been introduced by the petitioner bank with an understanding that a sum of ?4,338/- would give an yield of ?1 Lac on maturity at the end of 20 years provided that the rate of interest at 16% p.a. which was then prevailing is maintained throughout twenty years and that the deposit will be initially for a period of ten years earning interest at 16% p.a. for ten years and thereafter it will have to be renewed for 5/10 years thereafter at the rate of interest prevailing on the date of such renewal in accordance with Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. Thus, the first maturity date was 28.06.2006. It was indicated that the maturity value of ?1 Lac was only notional and was contingent upon the then prevailing rate of interest at the time of renewal as per RBI Guidelines. The petitioner bank informed the respondent /complainant seeking his instructions to renew the deposit in terms of the consent letter at the prevailing rate of interest. The respondent/complainant came to the bank and renewed the deposit as per the then prevailing rate of interest for a further period of ten years which was only 8.25% as per RBI guidelines and the maturity value was ?47,128/- instead of ?1 Lac. The grievance of the complainant is that when her father went to OP Bank on 22.06.2006 for renewal of the deposit for the further period of ten years, the OP bank gave one letter by hand delivery on 22.06.2006 with pre-formatted consent letter of the same date as intimation for renewal of the deposit. Complainant's father filed the consent letter with the OP bank on 28.06.2006 for renewal of the deposit for the further period of 10 years on behalf of the complainant. Simultaneously, as per the allegation in the complaint, the complainant's father sent one letter to OP bank on 27.06.2006 as per the promised maturity value stated in the deposit acknowledgement. The OP bank replied this letter on 04.07.2006 intimating that the bank had referred the matter to its controlling office. The complainant was shocked and surprised to learn that the OP bank had terminated the earlier scheme and had opened a new Dhanachakra Deposit in the complainant's name without complainant's consent or the consent of the complainant's father as her caretaker and without any intimation to them about it. The action of depositing the amount to the tune of ?20,827/- in the new Dhanachakra Deposit would substantially reduce the maturity value, which would be in violation of the initial declaration and promise made by the OP bank while accepting the deposit under the 'Lakshmi Subhiksha Deposit'. Treating this as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP bank, the respondent-complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum, which was allowed by it in terms of its order and reproduced above.

(3.) Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the OP bank challenged the same before the State Commission by filing the appeal, which came to be dismissed by the State Commission by its impugned order, which is now under challenge before us through this revision petition.