Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he was the sole holder of two Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 107271 and 107272 for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh each issued by the O.P./Bank, maturing on 25^th November, 2012 and 4^th December, 2012.  The interest was to be credited quarterly into the joint Saving Account No.29709.  On enquiry, he came to know that aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipts had been discharged by the Bank on 27^th November, 2012 and 3^rd December, 2012 on the basis of the signature of Mrs.Vira C. Kripalani and issued fresh Fixed Deposit Receipts and handed over to Mrs.Vira C. Kripalani.  The receipts were standing in the single name of the complainant but the same were discharged on the basis of the signature of Mrs.Vira Kripalani though she was not the holder of those receipts.  The Bank has no authority to discharge the receipts in the name of the complainant on the basis of signature of Mrs.Vira C.Kripalani and to hand over it to her.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponent to restore the Status Quo Ante and to issue fresh Fixed Deposit Receipts in the single name of the complainant with interest from 27^th November, 2012 and 3^rd December, 2012.  He has also claimed Rs.75,000/- for cost of litigation, traveling expenses and compensation for mental agony.   

2)                The O.P./Bank appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the O.P./Bank.  Fixed Deposit Receipts are in the joint name of Mrs.Vira Kripalani, Wife of the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  The relief claimed by the complainant is out of purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Prior to 9^th February, 2001, the complainant was holding savings account in his name only.  Vide letter dated 9^th February, 2001, the complainant requested to convert the said account into joint account to be operated either or survivor by the complainant and his wife Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  Vide letter dated 11^th January, 2005, the complainant confirmed that they are holding account jointly with his wife Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  The complainant and his wife were having Fixed Deposit Receipts in their joint names.  The said two receipts were matured on 27^th May, 2011 and 20^th May, 2011 respectively.  On maturity, the original receipts duly signed by Mrs.Vira C. Kripalani were forwarded to the branch of the O.P. with instructions to renew the said receipts in Gudi Scheme or any other good scheme.  Accordingly, the said receipts were renewed under term deposit scheme of 555 days at the rate of 9.75% payable quarterly in savings account No.29709.  However, while renewing, the same were renewed only in single name instead of joint names which became due on 25^th November, 2012 and 2^nd December, 2012.  After maturity, the receipts were submitted by Mrs.Vira Kripalani for renewal with the O.P./Bank.  After renewal, the said two receipts were handed over to Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  The complainant never objected for renewal of receipts in the joint names. The entire amount is under K.D.R. Scheme and there is no loss or injury to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 :- According to the O.P., the receipts were renewed in the joint name of Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  She is not the party therefore the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party.  On the other hand, it is submitted by the complainant that the original receipts were in the single name of the complainant. Those receipts were renewed in the joint name without his instructions.  It is the mistake of the bank and he has no concern with Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  Admittedly, original receipts were in the single name of the complainant.  There were no instructions from the complainant for renewal in the joint name. It is apparent mistake of the O.P. The O.P. can not take benefit of its own wrong. Therefore, Mrs.Vira Kripalani is not the necessary party and hence the complaint is not bad for non joinder of Mrs.Vira Kripalani as a necessary party.   

5) As to Point No.2 & 3 :- In the written statement as well as in the affidavit of evidence, the opponent has admitted that those receipts were in the single name of the complainant and matured on 25^th November, 2012 and 2^nd December, 2012.  The same were renewed on the basis of the signature of Mrs.Vira C.Kripalani though she was not the holder of the receipts.  After renewal, the receipts were handed over to Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  As per the procedure, when the receipts were in the single name of the complainant it could not be renewed on the basis of the signature of his wife Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  When the receipts were in the single name, the O.P./Bank can not renew it in the joint name.  According to the O.P., earlier, receipts were in the joint name with Mrs.Vira Kripalani but while renewing, the same were issued in the single name of the complainant.  Therefore, at the time of subsequent renewal, those were renewed in the joint name.  In the affidavit of evidence, the complainant has specifically called upon the opponent to produce the documents. As the opponent failed to produce the document in support of defence, the complainant has requested to draw the adverse inference.  In order to prove defence taken by the O.P., it was necessary to produce the documents on record.  In spite of specific request of the complainant in his affidavit of evidence, the O.P. has failed to produce the documents in support of its defence. 

6)                The O.P. has specifically admitted the receipts in the single name of complainant.  It has also admitted that those receipts were renewed on the basis of signature of Mrs.Vira Kripalani though she was not the holder.  Not only that, those receipts were handed over to Mrs.Vira Kripalani though there was no authority in favour of Mrs.Vira Kripalani.  On this background it was necessary for the O.P. to produce the documents to prove the defence taken by it. Merely because of Mrs.Vira Kripalani is a wife of the complainant and she was holding joint saving account, the defence taken by the O.P. can not be accepted. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for his amount in Fixed Deposit Receipts with interest.  There is no sufficient evidence to prove the defence taken by the opponent.  Therefore the same is not accepted.    Thus, the complainant is entitled for his amount in fixed deposit with interest at the prevailing bank rate. 

7)                The complainant has claimed cost of litigation, traveling expenses and compensation for mental agony.  Admittedly, there was correspondence by the complainant with the O.P.  The O.P. has not corrected the mistake in spite of request by the complainant.  Therefore, he was compelled to file this complaint. On this background the complainant is entitled for cost of proceeding and compensation for mental agony.  We think compensation of Rs.10,000/- will be the reasonable for mental agony.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for the cost of this proceeding of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.

2. The Opponent is directed to refund the amount in fixed deposits i.e. Rs.One Lakh each to the complainant with prevailing bank rate of interest from 25^th November, 2012 and 4^th December, 2012 respectively till actual payment.

3. The Opponent is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony.

4. The Opponent is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of this proceeding.

5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.

6. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

    

    

   Pronounced

Dated 22^nd May, 2014