Ms. Komal Goel vs Allahabad Bank

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              RFA No. 311/01, 312/01 & 317/01


%                                                  15th February, 2011

RFA No. 311/2001

MS. KOMAL GOEL                                  ...... Appellant
                          Through:   None

                          VERSUS


ALLAHABAD BANK                                  ...... Respondent
                          Through:   None
RFA No. 312/2001

MS.RADHIKA GOEL                                 ...... Appellant
                          Through:   None

                          VERSUS


ALLAHABAD BANK                                  ...... Respondent
                          Through:   None

RFA No. 317/2001

MS. MEGHA GOEL                                  ...... Appellant
                          Through:   None

                          VERSUS


ALLAHABAD BANK                                  ...... Respondent
                          Through:   None


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
         allowed to see the judgment?
RFA No. 311/01, 312/01 & 317/01                                     Page 1 of 3
  2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?

 3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    These cases are on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011 and

today these are effective item Nos.3, 4 and 6 on the Regular Board. It is

3.00 P.M.   No one appears for the parties.     I have therefore perused the

record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeals.


2.    These appeals are filed against a common judgment and decree dated

15.5.2001 of the trial court whereby the suits of the plaintiffs for recovery

have been dismissed.


3.    The case as set out in the plaint on behalf of the various plaintiffs, who

were minors and suing through their mothers, was that the respondent bank

did not allow the appellants to encash various fixed deposits which were to

mature on 4.1.1997. I may note that subsequently these fixed deposits have

matured and were encashed on 6.4.2000. The limited issue therefore is the

rate of interest for the disputed period.


4.    The appellants claimed interest at 24% per annum for the disputed

period, however, a reference to the cross-examination of PW-1 shows that it

is admitted that he had brought no proof to show that rate of interest in the

market is 24% per annum. I may also note that the plaintiffs had earlier filed

cases before the Consumer Forum which were dismissed and the orders of

RFA No. 311/01, 312/01 & 317/01                                      Page 2 of 3
 the Consumer Forums were upheld by the National Commission. Also, in the

notice dated 25.1.1997, Ex.PW1/3, the rate of interest which was claimed

was only 13% per annum. The appellants would naturally have received an

interest on the fixed deposit for the disputed period and which would have

been either 13% per annum (and probably compounded yearly) or near

thereabouts and thus, there does not arise any question of seeking of

interest at 24% per annum in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.


5.      The trial court has by a detailed judgment dismissed the suits and I do

not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments inasmuch as the original

claim was only for 13% per annum vide Ex.PW1/3 and it was thus not open to

the appellants thereafter to improve their case in litigation and claim higher

rate of interest at 24% per annum, which in any case was not proved as

required in law as the claim was based only on an oral statement that the

commercial rate of interest was 24% per annum.


6.      I therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are

therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




FEBRUARY 15, 2011                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib RFA No. 311/01, 312/01 & 317/01 Page 3 of 3