Order No. 28 dt. 23/11/2016
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants opened a joint fixed deposit account with SBI, Jalpaiguri Branch payable either or survivor for Rs.Rs.6 lakhs for a period of 12 months @ interest 18% per annum and the said fixed deposit was renewed for 36 months due to matured on 29.7.06. The complainant no.1 took a term loan (housing) Rs.5 lakhs on 20.5.03 against the equitable mortgage of title deed of house property and fixed deposit receipt for Rs.6 lakhs was pledged by the complainant no.1 and lodged with the said bank as collateral security. After the maturity of the fixed deposit amount the bank adjusted the amount on failure to repay the loan amount by the complainant no.1. Being dissatisfied the complainant sent representations to different o.ps. but no action was taken. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case with the allegation that o.p. no.2 bank had adjusted the disputed loan amount against the encashment of the FD receipt of Rs.6 lakhs in joint names and refunded the amount of Rs.98,875/- in the name of Samir Roy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the PNB and accordingly the complainant by filing this case prayed for directing upon the o.p. no.4 SBI Jalpaiguri Branch to produce before this Forum the FD receipt of Rs.6 lakhs and directing the o.p. no.4 to recall the entire amount of Rs.6 lakhs and also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- @ Rs.25,000/- each to both the complainants and also prayed for litigation cost.
The o.p. nos.1 to 3 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that as per the notification issued by RBI vide RBI/27005-06/153 RPCD.PLNFS.BC No.39/06231/2005-2006 and Supreme Court of India Sardar Associates vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank Civil Appeal no.4970-4971 of 2009 decided on July 2009 that a bank has to enter into the one time settlement in the non performing asset account after netting the amount i.e. available from the liquid securities (LIC policy, KVP, NSC, fixed deposit and any other liquid cash security) earlier deposit by the borrower / guarantor with the total dues in the account and also ascertaining the other primary and collateral securities available in the account at the point of time. Since the loan amount became irregular due to non payment of EMI and that account became NPA on 18.2.11 and o.ps. issued demand notice on several times but the complainants never paid any heed to regularize the account. Thereafter on 27.5.11 answering o.ps. issued a notice for appropriation of FDR which was pledged wih o.ps. for liquidate the bank dues but the complainants did not take any step. After issuing notice and repeated demand made by the bank the complainant did not clear the dues for which the amount was adjusted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case o.ps. submitted that there was no ground whatsoever for seeking relief against the o.ps. by the complainants and accordingly o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
The o.p. no.4 contested this case by filing w/v stating inter alia that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter because the cause of action arose beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. On 9.8.08 o.p. no.4 received a letter from PNB and came to know that the said FD account is kept lien before PNB and as per banking rules SBI Siliguri Branch redeemed the said FD. It was stated by o.p. no.4 that as per law TDS is deducted and as per letter dt.8.9.08 from PNB o.p. no.4 came to know that the said FD account is lien before PNB and as per banking rule SBI Siliguri Branch redeemed the said FD. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case o.p. no.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the case.
- Whether the o.p. bank can redeem the loan by adjusting the FDR standing jointly in the name of complainants.
- Whether the fixed deposit jointly owned can be pledged by account holder.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that the complainants had joint FDR with SBI Jalpaiguri Branch and the complainant no.1 took a loan of Rs.5 lakhs on pledging the said joint account FDR along with keeping the equitable mortgage of the house property. On failure to pay the loan amount of the joint FDR was adjusted with the loan amount and the complainant was sent with a draft of Rs.98,875/-. Now the question is whether the complainants’ joint FDR can be adjusted with the loan amount without the consent of other holder of the joint account. In respect of the said fact ld. lawyer for the complainants relied on decision as reported in 2004 SCCL.com 978 being Civil Appeal No. 6945 of 2004 wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that he banker has no right to set off the credit balance in the joint account except in respect of another joint account of the same parties. The difference between the joint fixed deposit account and a joint savings, current or other account is that there is no right in the depositors to operate such account and withdraw the money except upon maturity. Relying on the said decision ld. lawyer for the complainants emphasized that fixed deposit jointly owned with an ‘either or survivor’ clause can be pledged by one of the account holders with the bank and the bank cannot adjust the fixed deposit the amount of fixed deposit against such pledged without the authority knowledge or concurrence of the other account holder, herein this case the same thing had happened, therefore ld. lawyer relying on the said ruling emphasized that the complainants will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Ld. lawyer for SBI argued that admittedly the fixed deposit was made in the SBI, Jalpaiguri Branch and loan was obtained from SBI Siliguri Branch with the lien of FDR and no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum and on that score only the case is not maintainable and the complainants will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Ld. lawyer for o.p. no.4 emphasized that it is an admitted fact that the complainants did not pay the loan amount of Rs.5 lakhs and the FDR pledged to the bank which was adjusted after payment of interest and all other necessary amount credited to the account in respect of the said FDR and thereafter a bank draft was sent to the complainants for Rs.98,875/-. Considering the said factual aspects as well as ld. lawyer for o.p. no.4 cited a ruling as reported in 2009(9) SRJ 1 wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that no cause of action arose at Chandigarh and fire broke out in the godown of appellant at Ambala insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala Consumer Commission Court at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. In the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the Sec 17(2) of C.P. Act wherein it was held that no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh, therefore the case is not maintainable at Chandigarh and accordingly the complaint case was dismissed. Considering the said ruling ld. lawyer emphasized that the case is not maintainable and the same is accordingly be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainants had joint FDR amounting to Rs.6 lakhs and the FDR was taken from SBI, Jalpaiguri Branch and the loan was obtained from PNB Siliguri amounting to Rs.5 lakhs for the construction of the residential house at Jalpaiguri surrendering said joint fixed deposit of Rs.6 lakhs and the complainants failed to pay the said loan amount and the PNB Siliguri Branch informed the complainants to discharge the FDR under lien along with a letter of consent to appropriate the same against the dues and the said letter ws sent on 12.11.11. The complainants were repeatedly asked for settlement of the amount before adjustment of the FDR. In spite of receiving several letters the complainants did not take any action to liquidate the dues to PNB. Since the FDR was kept in lien the amount due was adjusted with the FDR. It is an admitted fact that loan was paid by PNB at Siliguri Branch, FDR was obtained from SBI, Jalpaiguri, the property is situated in Siliguri and thereby we hold that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore we hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction relying on decision as reported in 2009(9) SRJ 1 Supreme Court of India. Since the cause of action arose at Jalpaiguri and Siliguri the DCDRF, Jalpaiguri or Siliguri will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and accordingly we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.191/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
