- (1.) THIS appeal arises from order dated 16.6.2004 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kheda in Complaint No. 216 of 2003 directing the opponent Karamsad Urban Co -op. Bank Limited to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,15,796/ - being the amount of three different Fixed Deposit Receipts with interest @ 13% p.a. from the date of maturity thereof namely 8.5.2003 till payment and cost and compensation quantified at Rs. 5,000/ -. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for original opponent Karamsad Urban Co -op. Bank Limited, now appellant and the complainant No. 1 Chandrakantbhai Dahyabhai Patel.
(2.) IN so far as the Fixed Deposit Receipts are concerned, there is no dispute and it is obvious that in the ordinary course of banking business, opponent Co -op. Bank would have to repay the fixed deposit amount along with stipulated interest. By not making payment of the fixed deposit receipt in question on respective dates of their maturity, the opponent Co -op. Bank was deficient in rendition of banking service. To that extent the complainants submission deserves to be accepted. However, there clearly appears to be further development with regard to the affairs of the opponent Co -operative Bank. It is not in dispute and it cannot be disputed that Reserve Bank of India issued Notification dated 3.2.2003 directing the opponent Co -op. Bank not to make payment of any of the deposits including deposits in current account or savings bank account in excess of Rs. 2,000/ -. Such direction under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 has been placed on record. It is in that respect that the Reserve Bank of India has also sent a fax message inter alia saying that it is empowered to issue direction under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and same would be binding upon every Bank including the opponent Co -operative Bank. It has made reference to a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Janta Sahakari Bank v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1995 82 CompCas 707, where the Bombay High Court held that the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India are in the larger interest of the public and the Reserve Bank of India being a body of experts in banking, the direction given by it should not be lightly brushed aside. It has also made a reference to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Navdeep Co -operative Bank Ltd. v. Acharya Maharaj Shree Tejendraprasadji Devendraprasadji Pande and Anr.,1995 2 CPJ 52(NC) observing that concerned Bank was bound by the directives of the Reserve Bank of India and was, therefore, prohibited from making payment of the deposits on their maturity. Reference has also been made to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and Reserve Bank of India and Ors. v. Timex Finance and Investment Company and Ors.,1991 1 JT 2405, observing that Reserve Bank of India which is a banker s Bank is a creature of statute. It has large contingent of expert advice relating to the matters affecting the economy of entire country and nobody can doubt the bona fides of Reserve Bank, in issuing the impugned directions of 1987. It has also observed that Reserve Bank plays an important role in the economy and financial affairs of India and one of its important functions is to regulate the banking system in the country. The Courts are not to interfere with the economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the Courts to sit in judgment over the matters of economic policies and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. Reference has also been made to other decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda, 1994 5 SCC 213 and Bank of India Finance Ltd. v. The Custodians and Ors., 1997 AIR(SC) 1952 After making reference to the aforesaid position of law, Reserve Bank of India directed the opponent Co -operative Bank to approach this Commission for obtaining stay as well as appropriate orders in respect of the impugned order passed by the learned Forum.
(3.) IN our considered opinion, the directive of the Reserve Bank of India as noted herein above will have the effect upon the execution of the impugned order. In so far as merits of the case are concerned, even Reserve Bank of India does not have any say into the matter. It is quite obvious that the opponent Co -operative Bank would have to answer its liability with regard to fixed deposits to the depositors. Under such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be faulted, but execution thereof will have to be stayed and will have to be proceeded further strictly in accordance with the aforesaid directives of the Reserve Bank of India. In view of what is stated above, we pass following order. ORDER While maintaining the impugned order, the learned Forum is directed to stay its hands in the matter of execution of the said order and will not execute the same so as to contravene the aforesaid directives of the Reserve Bank of India. Needless to say that the opponent Co -operative Bank will have to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/ - for each of the fixed deposits to the complainants in terms of the Reserve Bank of India directives as contained in para 2 thereof. This appeal will accordingly stand disposed of with no order as to costs throughout. It will be open to the complainant to point out to the Reserve Bank of India about violation of the directives of the Reserve Bank of India by concerned Secretary of the opponent Co -operative Bank in respect of other persons/depositors so as to enable the Reserve Bank of India to take appropriate action against the opponent Co -operative Bank.;