Spouses have independent rights, and one spouse is not bound by the omission and commission committed by the other spouse.

The principal question which falls for consideration is whether wife is liable for the loan advanced to her deceased husband?

2. The facts of this case are these. Smt. Kusum Devi, complainant in this case, is the wife of late Shri Sunil Singh. Her husband died on 10.9.2008. Smt. Kusum Devi opened a saving bank account six months after the death of her husband with the State Bank of India, Telchar. The bank debited the entire amount in the sum of Rs. 3,83,000/- from the saving bank account of Smt. Kusum Devi without authorization on the pretext that her husband had taken per#31;sonal loan. The complainant was not aware of any such loan. She was not a co-borrower in the loan agreement. She never stood guarantor for her husband.

Consequently, she filed a complaint before the District Forum on the ground that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and she was enti#31;tled to the above said amount with interest @ 23% p.a. and further claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards mental torture and harass#31;ment.

The defence set up by the opposite party was that late Shri Sunil Singh during his employment in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (M.C.L.) had availed two personal loans by furnishing an irrevocable letter of authority in favour of M.C.L. which was authorized to recover the installments due to the opposite party's bank from his salary or from his terminal benefits as detailed in the letter of authority. It was contended that since the complainant did not dis#31;charge the loan amount of her husband, therefore, the bank was authorized to debit the amount from her passbook. Again, as per provisions under section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872, entire amount of Rs. 3,83,000/- was debited to the loan account of late Shri Sunil Singh for complete discharge and closer of the loan account.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint but the State Commission reversed that order. Smt. Kusum Rani has filed the present revision petition.

4. We have heard Mr. Om Prakash Singh, authorized representative of the petitioner and Mr. S. L. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent drew our attention towards section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872, which is reproduced as under :

"272. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and pol#31;icy-brokers.—Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect."

5. Lastly, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority re#31;ported in Syndicate Bank v. Sajay Kumar and others (1992) 2 SCC 330. In this case, it was held that as per bankers lien, there is no bar to attachment of any deposit of a cus#31;tomer in bank which is payable at a future date. It was further held that on re#31;ceiving the attachment notice, banker has. appear before the Court to obtain suitable directions safeguarding its interest which the Court will issue consid#31;ering the banker's lien over the deposits.

6. It was also argued that this was a house loan and the petitioner is housewife. She does not earn any amount. She was aware that the above said huge amount belongs to her husband. She could not furnish any proof that she is the owner of the said property.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent also pointed out that Shri Sunil Singh had given an undertaking to the effect that his entire estate and the property owned by him shall be liable for the reimbursement to the State Bank of India.

8. All these arguments are bereft of any merit. There is no iota of evidence which may go to show that the amount in question directly or remotely belongs to the petitioner's husband. This fact involves title to the disputed property and there lies no rub fo