BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 319 of 2019
Date of Institution: 11.4.2019
Date of Decision: 16.9.2019
S.Hari Singh age 70 years s/o S.Surta Singh R/o Gali No.5, Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Amritsar. ( M.No.9876263632 )
Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India ( Formerly State Bank of Patiala ) Branch Chattiwind Gate, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Vikram Puri ,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Ravi B Mahajan,Advocate
Coram
Ms.Rachna Arora, Presiding Member
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Presiding Member
1. Hari Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant along with his wife Smt. Parkash Kaur w/o Late S.Kawaljit Singh R/o H.No.404-A, Green Avenue, Amritsar had deposited some amount with the opposite party in the shape of one FDR on 27.3.2012 having account number 6513711737 with date of maturity as 2.10.2013 being the maturity amount of Rs.4,50,000/- under mode of operation either or survivor. Said FDR is still in continuation as the same has been got renewed by the opposite party every year at the instance of the complainant. On 29.8.2013, the complainant had moved one application to the opposite party i.e. Manager ( Formerly State Bank of Patiala ) for the release of said amount of FDR but the same could not be released in favour of the complainant because in between due to differences, said Parkash Kaur had already filed one civil suit against the opposite party regarding suit for declaration that she is entitled to get the maturity amount of FDR in question in which the complainant was also made as a necessary party and the said civil suit remained pending in the learned court of Smt.Sherryl Sohi, CJJD, Amritsar from 8.8.2013 to 21.7.2014 and the said suit was later on withdrawn by Smt.Parkash Kaur by giving a separate statement in the court itself. Thereafter, daughters of Smt.Parkash Kaur filed separate civil suit against the opposite party and others regarding the suit for declaration to the effect that only they are entitled to get the maturity amount of FDR in question in which the complainant was again made a necessary party. That civil suit remained pending in the civil court from 25.7.2014 to 17.8.2017, but the said civil suit filed by the daughters of Parkash Kaur was also ordered to be dismissed in default on 17.8.2017 due to non appearance of daughters of Parkash Kaur. Meanwhile said Parkash Kaur had also expired on 2.6.2018. It is further alleged that since mode of operation of said FDR in question was either or survivor and after the death of Smt.Parkash Kaur, now the complainant is only entitled for the amount of above said FDR in question alongwith its maturity amount and its interest upto date. The complainant is an old person and is suffering from various ailments and the amount of FDR in question is required by him for his treatment. On 24.8.2018, the complainant moved an application to the opposite party requesting them to release the maturity amount of the above said FDR in question alongwith its interest till date but the opposite party refused to listen to the complainant which has necessitated the filing of the present complaint. It is further alleged that act of the opposite party by not releasing the maturity amount alongwith interest till date to the complainant without any just and sufficient cause, amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence which has caused mental pain, agony, harassment as well as inconvenience to the complainant. It is further alleged that cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party on 24.8.2018 when the complainant moved written application to the opposite party and requested them to release the maturity amount of the above said FDR alongwith interest till date to him and cause of action arose few days back when the opposite party refused to listen to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to release the entire maturity amount of the above said FDR in question alongwith its interest till date in favour of the complainant;
(b) Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- may also be awarded to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as far as deposit of amount in the shape of FDR by the complainant alongwith Parkash Kaur wife of Late Kawaljit Singh is concerned, same is a matter of record. As far as application dated 29.8.2013 is concerned, the complainant is misrepresenting the facts as vide said application, he had represented the bank not to release the amount to Parkash Kaur and claimed interest amount only and not made any request for release of amount of FDRs in his favour. As far as civil suit filed by Parkash Kaur is concerned, the same is a matter of record and said suit was dismissed as withdrawn by Parkash Kaur, but that does not mean that she had relinquished her right in the FDRs and no decision on merits was passed in favour of parties. It is further submitted that daughters of Parkash Kaur filed separate civil suit for declaration and said suit was dismissed in default due to non appearance. Hence the said suit was decided on merit. In view of the said previous litigation, still as no party has got decided their entitlement over the amount of said FDR etc., hence no amount can be released to the complainant until and unless he brought succession certificate from competent court of law by impleading daughters/legal heirs of Parkash Kaur as part to the case and proving his entitlement as he himself had intimated the bank not to release the amount, as such, he cannot claim the amount of FDR without orders of the competent court of law in the shape of succession certificate. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and gross negligence on the part of the opposite party much less the complainant has suffered any mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience as alleged. It is, therefore, prayed that complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Vikram Puri,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant, copy of the FDR ex.C-1, copy of the letter dated 27.8.2013 ex.C-2, copy of the withdrawal statement of Parkash Kaur ex.C-3, copy of the order dated 17.8.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer of Civil Court ex.C-4, copy of the death certificate of Parkash Kaur ex.C-5, copy of the application dated 24.8.2018 ex.C-6, copy of the civil suit ex. C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Ravi B Mahajan,Adv.counsel for opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pranav Ranjan, Manager ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
5. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the opportunity made available for the purpose.
6. We find that the prime dispute between the litigating parties has arisen due to non release of FDR amount on maturity to the complainant on the basis of either or survivor clause in the impugned joint FDR itself. We find that the complainant has successfully proved on record through document Ex.C-1 the issuance of the Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 65137117137 dated 27.03.2012 for Rs.4.5 Lacs by the opposite party Bank (in the joint names with Smt. Parkash kaur now deceased , copy of death certificate is Ex.C5) falling due on 02.10.2013 and the opposite party Bank’s subsequent refusal to pay its maturity proceeds to him.
7. We find that the opposite party Bank has admitted in its reply of having issued the joint FDR in the name of the complainant and one Smt Parkash Kaur. We also find that opposite party Bank has not denied even the “Either Or Survivor” clause in the impugned Joint FDR in their reply. We further find that the opposite party Bank has repeatedly clarified its position that the requisite maturity proceeds were not paid/released to the surviving joint account holder i.e. the complainant due to the previous civil suits filed by Smt Parkash Kaur during her lifetime ( which was Dismissed as withdrawn by herself Ex.C3) and another civil suit which was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Smt Parkash Kaur (Which was Dismissed in default and never got restored till date Ex.C4). However, the opposite party Bank has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the said civil suits (Withdrawn and dismissed in default) had any bearing/legal impact or any bar on the release of FDR deposit or its maturity proceeds Or the same was/have been frozen/barred for payment at the orders of the competent authority of the Bank and/or other executive/judicial office. The opposite party Bank has miserably failed to prove its contentions and has just placed on record a formal Affidavit of its Manager and has failed to produce any documentary evidence in their support and have failed to prove the allegations vide some cogently reliable evidence and that turn these to mere ‘bald’ statements. We are of the considered opinion that opposite party Bank has severely bruised the consumer rights of the present complainant by way of withholding of maturity amount of joint FDRs in an arbitrary and dictatorial manner and has thus (in the process) attracted an adverse statutory award under the applicable Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, it shall be the opposite party Bank’s own prerogative as to how to manage/subside the presently ‘cropped-up’ situation but that certainly entitles the present complainant to ‘one’ favorable award under the statutory provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986.
8. It is otherwise also a settled law that if the benefit of survivorship is provided, the survivor can give a valid discharge to the Bank. If the legal heirs of the deceased joint holder lay a claim to the amount in the Bank, they should be advised that in terms of the contract applicable to the Joint FDR with Either or Survivor clause, the survivor is the only person entitled to payment by the Bank and that , unless the bank is restrained by an order of a competent court (which is not here in the present case), the bank would be within its rights and rather duty bound to make the payment to the survivor i.e. the present complainant in the complaint. We are of this considered view that a payment to survivor can be made as there is no restraining orders from any court restraining the bank from making such payments. The demand of succession certificate etc. and other unnecessary documents made by the Bank from the survivor/complainant is illegal ,arbitrary and amounts to unfair trade practice and is deficiency in service. In the case of these joint FDRs with either or survivor clause, the intention of the joint depositor is always is to facilitate repayment of the FDR to the surviving/survivor only in the event of his/her death. A fixed deposit in the joint names of two persons is nothing but a joint account. The bank is thus a debtor to the account holders in respect of the amount deposited. An “ either or survivor “ clause in such an account means that the amount payable by the Bank on maturity of the fixed deposit may be paid to either of the account holders by the Bank in order to obtain a valid discharge.
9. In view of the above discussion and circumstances, the Bank had no right to refuse payment of the amount deposited in the shape of joint FDRs to the Complainant i.e. the survivor. The refusal by the Bank was contrary to the Banking norms.
10. In the light of the all above, we find that the OP Bank has indeed bruised the consumer rights of the present complainant and that lines it up for an adverse award under the applicable statute. We, therefore, partly allow the present complaint with the direction to the opposite party bank to pay the said entire FDR maturity proceeds in full with up to date interest at the applicable interest rate to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 7% PA from the date of the orders till actual payment. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum (Rachna Arora)
Presiding Member
Dated: 16.9.2019
(Jatinder Singh Pannu)
Member
