R.S. Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.5.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. CC/12/366. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed by the District Forum. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are that: on 23.11.1991, the appellant/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 6,812 in the respondent/Bank in the name of his minor son Naman Bhatt under Laxmivarsha Jama Yojna. At that time respondent/Bank told the appellant/complainant that rate of interest is 13% p.a. and on the date of maturity i.e. 23.11.1994 the amount payable was Rs. 9,999. On being asked by the respondent/Bank, that again rate of interest was 13% p.a. the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount for six years. The first maturity amount was Rs. 21,544 and thereafter reinvestment of the above amount, the maturity amount payable was Rs. 46,717 and thereafter reinvestment of the said amount the maturity amount payable was Rs. 1,09,000. After maturity, the appellant/complainant went to the respondent/Bank and deposited the Fixed Deposit Receipt, the respondent/Bank kept the original FDR with it and intimated the appellant/complainant regarding correct interest and gave him only Rs. 58,085 instead of Rs. 1,09,000 and thus committed deficiency in service. Hence the appellant/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.
(2.) THE respondent/Bank filed written statement before the District Forum and averred that according to the prevailing rate of interest, the rate of interest was modified. For the first investment, the rate of interest on the deposited amount was 13% p.a. for the period from 23.11.1994 to 23.11.1995 and for next six years also the rate of interest was 13% p.a., but during the period 23.11.2000 to 23.11.2006, the prevailing rate of interest was 8.75%, which was effective till 23.11.2006. Thereafter the prevailing rate of interest was 7.25% p.a. According to the prevailing rate of interest the rate of interest was modified and the appellant/complainant is entitled for getting interest which was prevailing at the time of maturity of FDR. Therefore, the appellant/complainant is only entitled for a sum of Rs. 58,085 and respondent/Bank did not commit any deficiency in service. Learned District Forum, after appreciation of material available before it on record, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
(3.) MR . Anurag Thaker, learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that due to false assurance given by the employees of the respondent/Bank, the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount in Laxmivarsha Jama Yojna. In the FDR, the rate of interest was mentioned @ 13% p.a. for the period from 23.11.1994 to 23.11.2000 as 13% p.a. and from 23.11.2006 to 23.11.2012 also rate of interest was mentioned as 13% p.a. On being assurance given by the respondent/Bank, that rate of interest will be continued as 13% p.a. on the deposited amount, the appellant/complainant reinvested the amount with the respondent/Bank. Had respondent/Bank intimated the appellant/complainant regarding the modification in the rate of interest and informed that the rate of interest was reduced from 13% p.a. to 8.75%, then the appellant/complainant would not have reinvested the amount, therefore, the appellant/complainant is entitled for interest @ 13% p.a. on the deposited amount and learned. District Forum has wrongly disallowed the prayer of the appellant/complainant and dismissed the complaint.;