BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.97 of 2021
Date of Instt.01.03.2021 Date of Decision:-12.10.2021
1. Ms.Ranjit Kaur, daguther of Shri. Hari Singh,
2. Paramjit Singh son of Sh. Hari Singh,
Both residetns of Village Machrowal, Post Office Pachranga, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.
..........Complainants
Versus
1. Bank of India, Head Office, Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 through its Chairman.
2. Bank of India, Kharar Branch, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab through its Branch Manager.
3. Ms. Asha Rani, Branch Manager, Bank of India, Kharar Branch, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Gulshan Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. OPs No.1 to 3 exparte.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants against OPs on the averments that complainant Ranjit Kaur has saving bank account no.654710110001073 in joint names of Ranjit Kaur and Major Surinder Singh Sandhu son of Sh. Makhan Singh “either or survivor” with OPs no.2 and 3 having FDR dated 05.10.2020 bearing no. 654743710000010 to be matured on 05.01.2022 with maturity value of Rs.75,00,000.00. Major Surinder Singh Sandhu expired on 23.11.2020. Major Surinder Singh Sandhu bequeathed all his properties including the FDR vide registered Will dated 19.01.2009 bearing document no. 427 in his sound disposing mind in favour of the complainant Ranjit Kaur. After the death of Major Surinder Singh Sandhu, Ranjit Kaur approached OP nos.2 and 3 and got encashed FDR and converted it into another FDR in the joint names of Ranjit Kaur and Paramjit Singh “either and survivor”. No objection was raised at the time of encashment of the FDR and its conversion into a fresh FDR after adjusting the loan amount taken by Ranjit Kaur against the said FDR. But Ops no.2 and 3 did not deliver the original FDR to the complainant and have illegally detained the same. The Complainant Ranjit Kaur has also another FDR in her name which is going to be matured on 05.04.2021. The complainant Ranjit Kaur has been approaching OPs no.2 and 3 to deliver the original FDR as she was in need of funds and wanted to get the same encahsed. As per law and norms of the Bank, any survivor account holder can claim the proceeds of a security note or FDR or bank account. The bank cannot compel a customer to procure and produce any probate from the court. The term “either or survivor” cannot be misinterpreted by the noticee no.3 as per whims and fancies. The complainant Ranjit Kaur approached noticee no.3 requesting her to listen to her grievances and to pay proceeds of the FDR but she again refused to deliver the original FDR. The act and conduct of noticee no.3 in not delivering the original FDR and not making the payment of FDR is highly illegal, negligent and deficient in service and unfair trade practice. Due to said act and conduct of OPs, the complainants have filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to deliver the original FDR to the complainants, to pay proceeds of the said FDR to the complainants along with interest, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages on account of mental harassment and cost of litigation.
2. Notice sent to OPs no.1 to 3 on 12.03.2021 but same was not received back so far. Sufficient period has been lapsed. As such, OPs no.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte on 27.04.2021.
3. The complainant has tendered exparte evidence her affidavit Ex.C-A on the record along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard exparte evidence of the complainant and also have perused the record on the file very carefully.
5. The glance of evidence is required for adjudication of the case in hand. The complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-A on the record. She alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Ex.C-1 is copy of Aadhar card of Paramjit Singh, complainant no.2. Ex.C-2 is copy of aadhar card of Ranjit Kaur complainant no.1. Ex.C-3 is copy of passbook of the complainant. Ex.C-4 is copy of FDR in the name of Surinder Singh Sandhu and Ranjit Kaur. This is joint FDR, which is issue don 05.10.2020 and maturity date is 05.01.2022 for payment of Rs.75,00,000.00. This is photocopy of the FDR not original one. Surinder Singh died on 23.11.2020, this fact is clear from perusal of death certificate Ex.C-5, which is placed on record. Ex.C-6 is copy of Will on the record. In this document the deceased Major Surinder Singh. In this document, it has been specifically mentioned that after demise of Major Surinder Singh, all the properties which shall acquire after making of WILL shall deliver upon Ranjit Kaur. Ex.C-7 is copy of FDR which is issued in the name of Ranjit Kaur, which was issue don 05.04.2020 and maturity date is 05.04.2021 for Rs. 74,00,000/-. Ex.C-8 is copy of legal notice dated 01.02.2021 served upon OPs.
6. From perusal of entire record, it has been established that the saving bank account no.654710110001073 is joint account in the name of Rajit Kaur and Surinder Singh Sandhu (since deceased). This fact is clear from copy of passbook Ex.C-3 on the record. As such, complainant no.1 Ranjit Kaur is beneficiary of deceased Surinder Singh Sandhu. From perusal of FDRs Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-7, this fact is clear that the FDRs are in joint, which are issued in the name of Surinder Singh Sandhu and Ranjit Kaur daughter of Hari Singh. As per law and norms of RBI Guidelines, any survivor account holder can claim the proceeds of a security note or FDR or bank account. As per law, the bank cannot compel a customer to procure and produce any probate from the court. The term “either or survivor” cannot be misinterpreted by the OPs. There is only photocopy of FDR on the record and original FDR in the custody of Bank. On the other hand, OPs have not produced any document or evidence in support of their case. In the absence of any documentary evidence on the record, we cannot say that the OPs rightly declined the request of the complainant no.1 regarding awarding the maturity amount of FDRs to her. We are of the considered opinion that OPs no.2 and 3 are deficient in providing services to complainant no.1 Ranjit Kaur and unfair trade practice also attributed on the part of OPs no.2 and 3.
7. In the light of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and OPs no.2 and 3 are directed to deliver the amount of FDR in question to complainant no.1 Ranjit Kaur d/o Hari Singh. The complainant no.1 Ranjit Kaur is also entited Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation.
8. Entire compliance of above said order shall be made by OPs jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
12th of October 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
Jaswant Singh Dhillon
(Member)
