9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate of interest which the appellant was required to pay. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2982 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2006 - ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ. Mukul Rohtagi, Sanjay Gupta, Mrs. Varsha Kirpalani, N. Gupta and Rajeev Sharma for the Appellant. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan and Balraj Dewan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT S.H. Kapadia, J. - Leave granted. 2. This civil appeal, by grant of special leave, is filed by Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. against order dated 14-7-2004 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short National Commission ) dis-missing the bank s appeal and confirming the decree passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short State Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aturity of his deposit on 17-11-1990. In January 1992, as stated above, the respondent returned to India. He enquired about the status of his deposits. He did not get the response. He made a complaint in writing on 5-1-1992 and on 14-1-1992. On 7-9-1992, he received a letter from the bank stating that no outstanding amount was there in his name in the FCNR account. By letter dated 15-10-1992, the appellant stated that from their records it is seen that the said deposit was prematurely withdrawn on 22-11-1979. Thereafter, correspondence ensued. Respondent herein denied the fact of premature withdrawal of the deposit. He complained to RBI. On 19-4-1993 the bank stated that the deposit was encashed prematurely not on 22-11-1979 but on 23-11-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the opposite party till 17-11-1993. Thereafter, interest @ 18 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount which comes to approx. Rs. 1,28,220.83 (Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand two hundred twenty and paise eighty-three only)." 5. By written statement, the appellant conceded that the respondent had deposited on 17-8-1979 a sum of US $ 5000 in FCNR account for 63 months maturing on 17-11-1984 at 9 per cent per annum. However, the appellant contended that prior to the date of maturity the deposit was prematurely withdrawn on 23-11-1979. In this connection, reliance was placed on sale/purchase register. Therefore, according to the bank, there was no question of reinvesting of the aforestated amount from time to time, as alleged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipt was retained in safe custody; that there was no record to show that the said amount was prematurely withdrawn; that there was no evidence regarding destruction of the records on completion of eight years and since the initial deposit of US $ 5000 on 17-8-1979 stood established the decree, as prayed for, was granted by the State Commission. The Commission further found that there was no evidence on record to show that the respondent had given written instructions to the bank for premature withdrawal; that there was no endorsement on the receipt showing payment in lieu of discharge and, therefore, the bank was not entitled to place reliance only on entry in the sale/purchase register dated 23-11-1979. The State Commission further found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices rendered by the banks. Banks provide or render service/facility to its customers or even non-customers. They render facilities/services such as remittances, accepting deposits, providing for lockers, facility for discounting of cheques, collection of cheques, issue of bank drafts etc. In Vimal Chand Grover v. Bank of India AIR 2000 SC 2181 this Court has held that banking is business transaction between bank and customers. Such customers are consumers within the meaning of section 2(1)( d )( ii ) of the Act. 9. Only two points appear to have been argued by the bank before the National Commission, viz., question of premature withdrawal and limitation. However, the claim of the respondent for money decree with interest at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the converse case where the rate of exchange has gone against the opponent, the opponent would be subjected to a greater burden than what it should be. Apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Forasol s case ( supra ), we may observe that in such cases, the Agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should also keep in mind the economic situation of the country. Encashment of Dollar denominated deposits have certain economic implications. In the present case, none of these factors have been considered by the State Commission. In cases of this type, the burden is on the complainant to show the rate of exchange prevalent on the aforestated dates in order to assist the court to arrive at the indicative prices. This has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
