KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD Vs. KISHORE MANGANIRAMJI LATURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants / respondents in these petitions had savings bank accounts as also FFD Accounts with the Nanded Branch of the petitioner bank. According to the complainants in FFD Account, the account holder could make deposit as well as withdrawal any time and is paid interest as applicable on the date of deposit for the period the deposits remain with the Bank. The complainants had been withdrawing interest on such deposits after every 46 days. This is also their case that in the year 1997-98 they wanted to reduce the deposits but the then Branch Manager Mr. Mohan Rao told them that they will continue to receive the same facility as was available in FFD Account. Accordingly, the complainants did not transfer the deposits to other banks. The petitioner bank stopped paying interest in FFD account after every 46 days with effect from 28.02.1997 and the said accounts were converted into ADR Accounts. The complainant however, continued to make deposits even thereafter. It is also alleged by them that Mr. R.K. Shetty of the petitioner bank had agreed to pay compound interest @ 15% per annum on the FFD Account as on 28.2.1997 as also to pay interest at the prevailing rate on the deposits made thereafter. Since the complainants were not paid compound interest at the rate of 15% on the deposits as on 28.2.1997, nor were they paid prevailing interest rates on the deposits made after 28.2.1997, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints.

(2.) The complaints were resisted by the petitioner bank, which took a preliminary objection that the same were patently barred by limitation having not been filed in the year 2009 though the cause of action to file the complaints accrued on 26.7.2002 when the complainants were informed that the petitioner bank had closed the subject, in dispute. The opposite party denied the alleged assurance by the then Manager Mr. Mohan Rao and inter-alia stated that it was on the request of the complainants that the amount of FFD was converted into ADR with effect from 01.3.1997. It was further stated in the written version filed by the petitioner that no deposit as such was made by the complainants after 28.2.1997 and only dividend received from the companies was deposited. The original ADR receipts are stated to have been collected by the complainants from the bank, from time to time. It was further stated in the written version that after receiving the complaint from the complainant, the bank, considering the long standing relationship with him had offered to pay interest on FFD @ 15% per annum with effect from 28.2.1997 and offered actual rate of applicable interest on the deposits made after 28.2.1997, subject to submission of required details and / or forms at the Branch. The proposal was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 09.3.2002, but the said opportunity was not availed by him and therefore, stood withdrawn on 15.3.2002. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 16.4.2002 that since he had not availed offer made by the petitioner bank till 15.3.2002, it was not liable to pay interest to him, in terms of the said offer. It is further stated that the bank had sent 14 pay orders for a total sum of Rs.12,52,221/- to the complainant vide letter dated 6.7.2002 but the complainant refused to accept the same.

(3.) A perusal of the proceedings of the District Forum dated 16.12.2009 would show that the sealed envelope addressed to the complainant was opened and was found to contain the letter dated 6.7.2002, along with as many as 14 pay orders. Statements of account were also found in the said envelope.