MYOLA MASCARNAS Vs. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No.653/90 on its file. It arises in this way: 1. In 1980, when the husband of the Appellant was working in the State Bank of Mysore, Langford Town Branch, Banglore, she had de- posited certain amount in the said Bank. In 1984, the then Manager of the said Bank, informed the Appellant that she being wife of the employee of the Bank she is entitled to interest of 1% p. a. extra on her deposits and believing the same she renewed the deposits. The said Manager altered the interest payable on the said fixed deposits and issued deposit receipts. When two of her deposits matured for payment, the new Manager of the said Bank gave her only Rs.33,060/- as against Rs.35,737.50p. and she accepted it under protest. She refused to receive the amounts in respect of the remaining deposits as by accepting the same she would be losing about Rs.15,000/-. Alleging that she was duped by the Manager, she filed the complaint before the District Forum for issue of direction to repay the interest with penal interest at 18% p. a.

(2.) The respondent resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that the additional 1% interest on deposits is the special benefit extended only to the deposits from the employees of the Bank for their genuine savings and the said benefit is not extended to the spouses or dependants of an employee of the Bank, the Complain- ant is not entitled to the enhanced interest claimed; that this Manager has acted illegally in quoting the rate of interest in the Fixed Deposits and that the Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs claimed.

(3.) The District Forum held that as the husband of the complainant was an officer of the same Bank had not extended this benefit of extra 1% interest to the deposits of the complainant, she was not justified in claiming this extra interest for her deposits only on her ground that the then Manager of the Bank has, contrary to the directions of the Reserve Bank of India, extended this benefit, and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal by the complainant