STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. V N SEHGAL
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
STATE BANK OF INDIA
V N Sehgal
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) VIDE impugned order dated 19.11.2004, the District Forum has held the appellant guilty for deficiency in service in accepting an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 towards PPF against permissible limit of Rs. 60,000 in a year and thereby depriving him of the interest due to him and held that interest @ 3.5% i.e., saving bank account interest was not adequate and does not meet the ends of justice as the error remained undetected for seven long years.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved the appellant has directed his appeal.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY official of the appellant accepted a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000 as contribution towards the PPF account issued by the respondent on 1.3.1995 whereas the permissible limit for deposit against such an account as per rule was Rs. 60,000 in a year. The irregularity in accepting such a huge amount was detected some time in the year 2002. Till then the interest applicable in the PPF account was being credited to the account of respondent. It was on 3.5.2002 that the appellant wrote to the respondent that during the course of examination of his account a deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 has been noticed which was not in accordance with the rule of PPF account, therefore, he should withdraw the excess amount. The matter lingered on for two months and ultimately the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs vide its letter dated 13.11.2002 informed the respondent that it had been decided to pay him interest at the post office saving bank account rate @ 3.5% on Rs. 4,40,000 from 1.1.1995 to 6.8.2002 and further informed him that such type of irregularity does not reoccur in future. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.
Appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the premise that in spite of having full knowledge that the permissible limit of deposit in a year was Rs. 60,000, the respondent may be in connivance with the staff of the appellant as well as the agent through whom he made this deposit has tried to reap the undue benefit and further that under the Rules and Regulations the appellant is not liable to pay the interest more than the interest available in the saving bank account as this is a statutory scheme framed under the provisions of Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 and according to this scheme the amount so deposited in any individual PPF account is immediately transferred to the Central Government and is not utilized by the bank.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.