Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member
Catherine De Souza and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Bank of Maharashtra and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.366 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 27/02/2013 in Complaint No.12/2012 of the State Commission Goa)
Decided on 18.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Bipneet Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINT
Calling all the joint bank account holders regarding payment of maturity amount under F.Ds. cannot be called a deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 19 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Sections 41 and 2(11)]—Fixed deposit—Payment on maturity—Objection against—F.Ds. kept with respondent no. 1-Bank in joint names of three persons and one of the three had written a letter of objection to the Bank—Bank informed the complainants that to claim the amount under F.Ds. unanimous decision of the holders duly supported with NOC would be necessary and therefore sought their physical presence—Complainant filed civil suit where was decreed act Bank directed to pay to complainants the maturity amounts, i.e., Rs. 78,32,808/-—Subsequently complainants filed a complaint before Consumer Forum for grant of damages—Principles for res judicata invoked, since this was clearly a case of res-judicata as on the same facts, the consumer fora was being approached seeking a further relief had not been granted by the civil court—Indeed, proper course of action for the complainants was indeed an appeal before a higher civil court and not a fresh complaint before consumer fora—Calling of all the joint account holders together to put matters beyond the realm of any doubt cannot be called a deficiency is service. (Paras 14 to 18)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—Under challenge in this First Appeal No.366 of 2013 is the impugned order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 27.02.2013. Vide this order, in C.C. No.12/2012, the State Commission had dismissed the complaint.
2. Very briefly, facts of the case are as follows. The appellants – Mrs. Catherine de Souza (complainant no.1) and Mr. Jude de Souza (complainant no.2) had, on 29.08.2009, five fixed deposits maturing on 29.08.2010 with 7% interest p.a., payable on “any one or survivor basis”. Wife of complainant no.2, Ms. Aleta de Souza was also a joint holder along with the complainants. Ms. Aleta de Souza wrote a letter dated 20.04.2010 to the bank instructing not to break the fixed deposits except in her presence and with her signature. Respondents No.1 – Bank of Maharasthra (OP No1) and respondent no.2 - Mr. Ramesh Jagtap (OP No.2), (‘OPs’) informed the complainants about the said objection vide letter dated 14.08.2010, and further informed that the bank would not be in a position to either renew the FDs or pay the dues on the maturity date. So stating, the OPs informed the complainants that to claim the amount under the FDs, unanimous decision of the holders duly supported with NOC would be necessary and therefore sought their physical presence. This action on the part of the OPs was held to be malafide for a variety of reasons. The complainants then filed Civil Suit No.521/2010/D in the court of Civil Judge at Margao against the OPs. This was decreed on 09.05.2012 : OP-1 was directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.78,32,808/-, the maturity amount. This was paid on 21.05.2012. After this, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission which, as noted earlier, was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
3. The matter was heard on 17.08.2020.
4. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants went through the facts of the case. His first submission was that the bank, in its letter dated 14.08.2010, had merely stated that one of the holders had taken objection, without revealing as to who the objector was. In reply dated 22.08.2010, the complainants pointed this out to the bank and assailed it’s decision to withhold payment of the deposits based on the sole representation of a joint holder and not in pursuance of an order of a judicial authority, holding it to be arbitrary and illegal. Vide a subsequent letter dated 24.08.2010, complainants also informed the bank that the FDs were payable to “any one or survivor”, alleging that therefore, the bank’s action withholding payment was malafide, illegal and arbitrary. The learned Amicus Curiae argued that the action of the bank, in bringing the objection of one of the holders of the FDs sent to the bank vide letter dated 20.04.2010, to the notice of the complainants vide letter dated 14.08.2010 just 10 days before the date of maturity, informing them that had the FDs would neither be renewed nor paid unless the joint holders came to the bank, thereby freezing the deposits effectively, was a deficiency in service. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that there was correspondence between the OPs and the complainants, basically on three issues. First, the complainants emphasized that since the deposits were payable on “any one or survivor” basis, any of the holders could have received the amount after maturity of the deposit receipts. Second, if the OPs had to have any objection, they should have acted immediately and informed the complainants. However, OP had not done so. Third, OP did not explain in its reply why it took over four months to act on the objection letter of one of the holders. Learned Amicus Curiae drew attention to the impugned order of the State Commission. He explained that the complaint had been dismissed mainly on the ground that the complainant had approached the civil court in the same matter where a judgment had also been passed and the amount paid. As s
