Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Lt. Col. Darshan Singh, Member
PATIALA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
KULDEEP SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal No. 567 of 2003
Decided on : 15-07-2009
Act Referred
Headnote
FDR - Joint Account Dispute - Not Either or Survivor - - [Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 45ZC, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 10] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to joint accounts, survivorship, and the rights of joint holders. It interpreted the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, Consumer Protection Act, and Indian Contract Act to determine the entitlement of the respondent to the amount of the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in a joint account. The court emphasized that the appellants were legally bound to make payment to the joint holder and highlighted the lack of justification for denying the payment to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000 in a joint fixed deposit receipt (FDR) with his mother. After his mother's death, the bank refused to release the FDR amount to the respondent, leading to a complaint against the bank for deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent, as a joint holder of the FDR, was entitled to the amount and that the bank's refusal to release the funds was unjustified. The court also noted that the entry of the FDR amount in the respondent's savings bank account was illegally deleted by the bank.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the respondent to the FDR amount, the legality of the bank's actions, and the requirement for a succession certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent, as a joint holder, was entitled to the FDR amount and emphasized the lack of justification for the bank's refusal to release the funds. The court also highlighted the illegal deletion of the FDR amount entry in the respondent's savings bank account.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were burdened with costs. The court ordered the appellants to remit the deposited amount to the respondent and pay interest. The court upheld the majority judgment of the District Forum in favor of the respondent.
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
ORDER
S.N. Aggarwal, President - Kuldeep Singh respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000 in the name of his mother Khuspal Kaur on 19.6.1997 with the appellant bank in the shape of fixed deposit receipt bearing No. 003507. Originally it was issued for six months but it continuously being renewed after six months. Lastly it was renewed on 16.7.1999 with effect from 19.6.1999 for one month only. The respondent himself used to get renewed this FDR even during the life-time of his mother.
2. It was further pleaded that during the continuity period of the Fixed Deposit Receipt, the mother of the respondent expired on 1.6.1999. The respondent informed the Branch Manager about the death of his mother Khuspal Kaur and a copy of her death certificate was also given to the Branch Manager of the appellant Bank. The maturity date of the FDR was 19.6.1999.
3. It was further pleaded that after the date of maturity the respondent presented the FDR in person along with death certificate of his mother and he applied for withdrawal of the amount of the said FDR. However he was informed by the officials of the appellants that FDR was joint. Therefore the death certificate of his mother was required and thereafter the amount would be transferred in the savings bank account of the respondent. The respondent was also directed to open a savings bank account in his name in the said Branch of the appellant Bank. The respondent complied with immediately. Thereafter the amount of FDR along with interest thereon was credited in the savings bank account No. 2606 of the respondent.
4. However it was pleaded that later on this credit entry in the savings bank passbook of the respondent was scored off by the authorities of the appellants. Repeated requests made by the respondent failed to cut an ice. Since then the amount of FDR was not paid to the respondent on one pretext or the other. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants the respondent filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum") claiming the amount of the FDR. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The appellants filed written reply. It was admitted that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000 in the appellant bank by way of FDR jointly with Smt. Khuspal Kaur. It was denied if during the life-time of his mother the FDR was renewed by the respondent from time-to-time or if the FDR automatically stood converted in the name of the respondent alone. Since the FDR was jointly got issued by the respondent along with his mother Khuspal Kaur, therefore, there is no question of automatic conversion of the FDR in his name when his mother was alive. After the death of Khuspal Kaur her share was to go to the other legal heirs of Khuspal Kaur. It was denied if signatures of Khuspal Kaur were not obtained at the time of first, second and onward renewals. Even otherwise renewals can be made by one of the depositors unless the other objected.
6. It was further pleaded that form of the FDR was to be filled by the respondent in his own hands but sometimes to facilitate the depositors the officials of the appellant Bank also fill the form. It was denied if it was mentioned in the form that it was being issued with the title either or survivor .
7. It was denied if Khuspal Kaur had died on 1.6.1999 or if the death of Khuspal Kaur was intimated by the respondent to the Branch Manager of the appellants before renewal of the FDR on 16.7.1999. If the death certificate of Khuspal Kaur had been produced there was no question of renewing the said FDR. The death of Khuspal Kaur was concealed by the respondent at the time of said renewal of this FDR. The respondent had not furnished the particulars of the prescribed form after the date of maturity of this FDR and mere tendering of the death certificate is not sufficient.
8. It was further pleaded that the appellants cannot make the payment of FDR above Rs. 20,000 i
