This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          On evaluatiuon of the entire complaint we have gathered that the fact of the case is that complainant and his wife Sibani Roy, since deceased jointly opened the following FDR A/c. with UCO Bank, Bagmari Road Branch, Kolkata – 700 054.

No doubt complainant and his wife are and were bona fide account holder of the above FD Accounts and mode of operation of the accounts are “either or survivor”.  But anyhow suddenly the wife of the complainant Sibani Roy became seriously ill and she was in ventilation for which complainant needed huge amount to pay the bill amount of the nursing home or the hospital and to face such financial situation complainant prayed to the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Bagmari Road Branch for premature encashment of the FDR to meet the expenses for the treatment of his wife.  But that was refused by the OP arbitrarily and ultimately his wife died on 03-11-2013.  Thereafter, on the death of his wife complainant prayed for discharging the said FDRs prematurely and filed an application before the OP1 Bank for discharging the said FDRs prematurely on the ground of encashment of the said FDRs prematurely but even then OP refused to allow his prayer and to encash the said FDRs before maturity.  Though in the said FDRs mode of operation of the said FDRs is either or survivor.

          Thereafter, complainant requested several times verbally as well as filing written prayer on 17-12-2013 and 09-01-2014 and even by Advocate’s letter dated 11-03-2014 demanding premature encashment of the above FDRs but OP did not respond and they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant for premature encashment of the above FDRs though complainant being sole survivor lawfully entitled to premature encashment of the above FDRs but the OP1 infringed the complainant’s lawful rights though there is no legal banking rules and regulations restraining the sole survivor to withdraw the premature encashment of above FDRs.

          Fact is that in the said FDRs after the death of his wife to avoid the future complication for encashment of the FDRs in future there are names of nominees but OP1 with bad motive refused  to accept15H form to be submitted by the complainant as “survivor” against the said FDRs and for the above negligent, deficient manner of service and for adopting such arbitrary action on the part of OPs complainant has filed this complaint praying for direction upon the OP for delivering the entire amount of the FDRs as premature encashment in favour of the complainant and for compensation and also litigation cost.

          On the other hand OP Bank by filing written statement submitted that complainant has suppressed the material fact and legal provision of the FDRs in case of premature encashment on the death of one of the FDR holders and in fact there was no laches, lacunae, deficiency, defect or arbitrary act on the part of the OP in rendering service.  But it is stated by the OP in their written statement that no doubt both complainant and his wife open 6 fixed deposit accounts with OP2 in their names.  It is specifically mentioned on receipt of the application of the complainant with a prayer for encashment of the FDRs before maturity OP stated that the complainant did not furnish appropriate claim from/application on Accounts/Assets/Securities held by the OP2 Bank which are still in the name of the deceased wife namely Sibani Roy including the complainant and at the time of opening the said FD Accounts by the deceased wife of the complainant, nomination was registered and so, the premature payment cannot be made by the OP1 Bank and it is mentioned by OPs that as per provision/circular/guideline of the OP Bank with regard to the premature payment of any fixed deposit account where is either or survivor mode/facility has been available or obtained by any depositors in that case the survivor is only entitled to get/withdraw the matured amount only on the date of its maturity, not before the date of maturity that is called as per terms of contract and for which the OP failed to consider his prayer.

          Further it is submitted that OP Bank gave the claim form for submission of the claim to the complainant but till date the alleged complainant has not adhere to the statement of the OP Bank and instead in place of submission of the form/application for consideration of the claim, the complainant insisted and created pressure/threatened theOP1 and ultimately submitted this application.  It is no doubt not maintainable in the eye of law and truth is that if complainant would file the prescribed format/for/application and application for refund of premature encashment of FDRs the matter should be considered and until and unless duly filled in form is to be submitted, it is not possible for the Bank to consider it and in reality bank cannot go outside the banking rules and regulations and so, the entire application is frivolous, fabricated and vexatious and arbitrary and for which the complaint should be dismissed and rejected.

Decision with Reasons

Fact remains Bank contested the case and truth is that during pendency of this complaint OP filed an application challenging the maintainability of the case by filing an application on 17-10-2014 claiming that the transaction of the Sibani Roy and complainant are jointly commercial in nature and to get commercial profit of the FD accounts in question they deposited that amount and deceased wife of alleged complainant opened six numbers of fixed deposit with the OP2 Bank in the name of herself including in the name of her husband, the complainant and the present fixed deposit amount under the Mode of “Either or Survivor” but due to sudden demise of complainant’s wife being the first depositor on 03-11-2013 the alleged complainant submitted one application letter for premature encashment of the FD amounts as invested by the survivor of the said deposit.  But as per banking rules in case of either or survivor before maturity complainant is only and entitled to draw the amount on the date of maturity only as per FD receipt of the said deceased wife of the alleged complainant the first date of maturity is written there.  After hearing the maintainability petition as filed by the OP it was decided finally on 10-11-2014 after contested hearing and considering the entire materials’ and regulations including fundamental fact of the case that maintainability petition was rejected by this Forum OP and OP was directed to file questionnaire on the next date that is on 27-11-2014 but unfortunate fact is that after the rejection of that petition of the OP that they did not appear so the case was heard accordingly finally in absence of the OP on that ground.   This OP after considering the order in respect of their application challenging the maintainability realized that they have their no truth in respect of their defence as alleged in the W/V and in fact on 27-11-2014 OP did not take any step, and no questionnaire was filed by the OP so, the case was fixed for evidence in chief by the OP.  Thereafter the case was fixed on 12-12-2014 for filing E-chief by the OP but on that date OP did not turn up even no E-chief was filed even after call so the case was fixed for final hearing argument on 17-12-2014 and ultimately on 17-12-2014 when the case was heard it was found that OP is again absent including his Ld. Lawyer.  Further on proper consideration of the material facts and also the documents including the provisions it is clear that Clause 1(B) reveals that for customers who opt for opening joint account, Bank will educate them about the advantages of opening the account with operational mandate such as “either or survivor” or “anyone or survivors” or “former or survivor” or ‘latter or survivor” and such type of mandate will permit the surviving account holders to have unimpeded access to the credit balance in the account for withdrawal, if one of the co-account holders dies and in the event of death of co-account holder, payment to surviving account holder or allowing of operation to surviving account holder will be done in the normal course subject to the only rider that there is no order from a competent court restraining the Bank from doing so.  But from the Banking rules in respect of the FD etc. it is found that there is a provision to the effect that “in the event of death of one joint account holder, withdrawal precaution will be permitted against joint request of the survivor and the legal heir or any one of them as authorized by all legal heir as per the terms of contract on verification of authority of the legal heir and proof of death of depositor”.  Fact remains complainant did not file any such application form duly filled in by him to the Bank which is undisputed.  So, it was not processed as claim, by the Bank but most interesting factor is that there are certain Forms which must be supplied by the Bank in case of premature withdrawal of FD on the death of one co depositor but from the complainant’s own document it is clear that complainant wrote a letter on 17-12-2013 to the OP stating that co-depositor of FDs i.e. his wife died on 03-11-2013 that letter was received by the Uco Bank but against that no reply was made by the OP and complainant was not asked to file any such document after filing of such application or any other matter etc. but most peculiar factor is that, thereafter, also complainant sent so many letters for discharging the FDRs prematurely due to death of his wife Sibani Roy that was received on 09-01-2014 by the banking authority with seal and signature but no answer was given by OP.   Considering that fact it is clear that as complainant is a consumer under the OP and that even after receipt of two letters of premature release of the FDs on the death of his wife OP Bank authority particularly the Branch Manager and related other staffs kept silent and such sort of act on the part of the OP is no doubt a negligent manner of service and fact remains that complainant has not yet got such services as consumer of the OP and truth is that the grievance as alleged by the complainant before this Forum and against the OP is well proved and no doubt there was a cause of action to file this case when premature withdrawal of the FD on the death of co-depositor is applicable in the eye of law and as per Banking Rules but the bank did not consider it and at the same time Bank did not send any paper or application form including other instructions for filing such duly filled up form etc. so, apparently we are convinced to hold that there was no deficiency on the part of the complainant for demanding the refund of the premature withdrawal of the said FDRs.  Truth is that two FDRs completed its terms and it has already been matured and in respect of the matured FDRs Bank is bound to refund the matured amount and by order dated 10-11-2014 this Forum already directed Bank to release the maturity amount of those two FDRs which completed its terms and maturity date already expired and in respect of other FDRs we have gone through that same would be matured on 02-11-2015, 19-05-2016, 05-03-2017 and 19-03-2017.  So, in respect of these four FDRs complainant prayed for premature encashment and he already applied for that so, the Banking authority is bound to release that amount to the complainant after taking such form duly filled up by the complainant and taking such step if OP Bank requires it must be released in favour  of the complainant without any further delay and within one month from the date of this order and invariably along with said amount the interest shall be at the rate of banking interest not as per FDRs interest from the date of opening of the said FDRs and interest shall be calculated up to date till payment of the same to the complainant so banking authority OPs are directed to comply this order strictly without any further delay in view of the fact we have already observed by order dated 10-11-2014 that OP Bank always tried to waste time to harass the complainant and they had their no intention to refund the same for which they did not send any application form or any other documents to be submitted by the complainant after filling up of the same and truth is that OP Bank authority are very much arrogant and they are not willing to comply the order of the Forum.  It is evident from the fact that their petition challenging the maintainability was rejected with cost of Rs.5,000/- but that has not been paid and after that order their Ld. Lawyer and the OPs left the fray that means callous and negligent manner of service on the part of the OP is well proved and it is also proved that the complainant was harassed by the OPs intentionally and no doubt such sort of service is deficient and negligent in manner for which the complaint succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest in view of the fact complainant submitted written version, contested the maintainability petition and thereafter, they are silent and for which the OP shall have to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant jointly and severally.

          OPs are hereby directed to release the premature encashment of the 4 FDRs as started in the body of the judgment after supplying such application form/format and other papers to the complainant and after submission of the same by the complainant OP shall have to refund the entire amount as premature encashment of the said four FDRs in favour of the complainant but it must be complied within one month from the date of this order and OPs are directed to send their staff to the house of the complainant along with such documents and collect the same from the complainant after duly filled in by the staff and release the present amount if OPs do not act as per the order in that case all the FDRs shall be treated as finally closed prematurely and OP Bank shall have to refund the said premature encashment amount of the FDs along with banking interest from the date of opening of the said FDRs and till the final payment of the entire amount of the complainant and everything shall be made within one month from the date of this order without further harassing the complainant

          If it is found that even after that if they are found reluctant to comply the order in that case OP shall have to pay penal damages  at the rateRs.500 per month till full satisfaction of the decree and that amount shall be deposited to the Forum at once.  At the same time OP shall have to pay another Rs.5,000/- as was awarded as cost vide order dated 10-01-2014 to the complainant within that period.

          Even if it is found that OPs are unwilling to comply the order in that case OP shall be prosecuted u/s.27 of the C.P. Act and penal action shall be started against them.