Delhi

StateCommission

A/159/2015

SH. JASPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB & SIND BANK - Opp.Party(s)

VISHWENDRA VERMA

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :22.04.2016

First Appeal No. 159/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 23.2.15 passed in Complaint Case No.85/15 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum(West), Janakpuri, New Delhi.)

 

In the matter of

Shri Jaspreet Singh

S/o Avtar Singh

R/o H-No.42 IInd floor

KZ-51, Pratap Nagar

New Delhi-110064

 

……Appellant

 

Versus

1. The Chairman

Punjab & Sind Bank

Hari Nagar Branch

Delhi.

Head Office At :

Bank House, 21, Rajendra Place,

New Delhi - 110008

 

2. Ms. Jasleen Kaur,

W/o shri jasppreet Singh,

D/o Shri Tejinder Singh

R/o 70-B, Vikrant Enclave,

Mayapuri, New Delhi

 

3. Shri Tejinder Singh

R/o 70-B, Vikrant Enclave,

Mayapuri, New Delhi.

 

…Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             By this appeal, appellant herein i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum has challenged the order dated 23.2.15 passed by the Ld. District forum (West), Janakpuri, New Delhi whereby  the consumer complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, ’the Act) has been dismissed
2.             We have perused the impugned order, the same is reproduced as under:-

                        ‘85/15

                        Shivali Singh, Advocate for the Complainant

            Heard the arguments. The case of the complainant is that a FDR was purchased from the respondent bank in the joint name of the complainant and his wife. The amount of which was released by the bank in favour of the respondent without consent and notice to the complainant. Hence, the bank was deficient in service. Copy of the FDR has been filed by the complainant himself which clearly reads that the amount can be released in favour of ‘either or survivor’. So it authorized the bank to release the amount in favor of either of the parties when both are alive and in favour of surviving person in case of death of one of the FDR holder. The releasing of the FDR amount in favour of the respondent only does not amount to deficiency in service as the amount was released by the bank as per terms and conditions of issuance of the FDR. No case is made out. Complaint is rejected. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties and file be consigned to record room.’

 

3.             The  grievances of the appellant is that since the FDR issued by the respondent bank was jointly held by him alongwith his wife i.e. respondent No. 2, the respondent No.1/bank committed deficiency in service in releasing FDR amount in favour of his wife on its maturity.
4.             The Ld. District Forum after noticing the mode of operation of FDR which was ‘Either or Survivor’ and the terms and conditions of the FDR as per which the respondent bank was authorized to release in favour of either or survivor, has released FDR in favour of respondent No.2 who was holding the FDR jointly with the appellant/complainant. Nothing has been shown by appellant/complainant that the respondent bank acted in contrary to terms & conditions of FDR. In these circumstances Ld. District Forum was justified in holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1/bank in releasing FDR amount in favour of respondent No.2.
5.             The impugned order is reasoned one. No illegality is seen.
6.              Appeal stands dismissed in limine.
7.             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the Ld. District forum (West), Janakpuri, New Delhi

         File be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member