State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jasvir Singh S/O Sukhdev Singh S/O ... vs Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank on 31 May, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1544 of 2004
Date of institution: 22.12.2004
Date of decision : 31.05.2010
1. Jasvir Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh s/o Kartar Singh resident of Mangewala,
Tehsil & District Moga.
2. Iqbal Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh s/o Kartar Singh resident of Mangewala,
Tehsil & District Moga.
3. Sukhdev Singh s/o Kartar Singh resident of Mangewala, Tehsil & District
Moga.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Droli Bhai, Tehsil & District Moga.
2. Punjab & Sind Bank, Droli Bhai through its Manager.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 23.11.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Moga.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.M.K.Garg, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Mukand Gupta, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Jasvir Singh appellant No.1 and Iqbal Singh appellant No.2 had deposited a sum of Rs.1,54,500/- with the respondents in the fixed deposit receipt and the maturity date was 30.06.2004 and the maturity value was Rs.1,63,174.
2. It was further pleaded that Jasvir Singh appellant and his father Sukhdev Singh appellant had also deposited another amount of Rs.1,54,500/-. The maturity date was 30.06.2004 and the maturity value was Rs.1,63,174. First Appeal No.1544 of 2004 2
3. It was further pleaded that on 1.7.2004, the appellants reached the respondent bank for getting the maturity value. The respondents postponed the matter on the ground that the payment on that day was not possible.
4. It was further pleaded that thereafter the appellants went to the respondent bank on 5.7.2004. The Manager of the respondent bank kept the money with him and told the appellants that Sukhdev Singh appellant No.3 was a defaulter. Therefore, it was not possible for the respondent bank to make the payment to them. When appellants No.1 and 2 made enquiry from appellant No.3 Sukhdev Singh if he was a defaulter, Sukhdev Singh appellant No.3 denied this allegation. Since there were two persons in the FDR, therefore, the respondent bank had no right to hold back the money on the plea that one of the account holders was a defaulter. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank, the appellants filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short "the District Forum") for withdrawal of the money of the fixed deposit receipts. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondent bank filed the written statement. It was admitted that the appellants had the following FDRs : -
" a. FDR No.288414 dated 30.6.2003 for Rs.1,54,500/- with maturity date 30.06.2004 and maturity value Rs.1,63,174/-. b. FDR No.288294 dated 30.06.2003 for Rs.1,54,500/- with maturity date 30.06.2004 and maturity value Rs.1,63,174/-/- That these fixed deposit receipts were with the direction of either or survivor meaning thereby that either of the two could withdraw the amount on the maturity of the fixed deposit receipts."
6. It was further pleaded that the payment of FDR No.288414 was duly credited in the saving bank Account No.7538 of Jasvir Singh appellant on 5.7.2004. Another amount of Rs.1,63,500/- was withdrawn by Jasvir Singh appellant on 5.7.2004 from his account through a loose cheque No.681710. This First Appeal No.1544 of 2004 3 loose cheque was taken by Jasvir Singh appellant from the officials of the respondent bank.
7. It was further pleaded that the appellants had dealing with the respondent bank earlier also. They were aware about the bank timings and the working days. No public dealing takes place on Thursdays in the respondent bank and the cash is closed on Saturdays at 12 noon. The appellants had visited the respondent bank at odd hours.
8. It was further pleaded that Iqbal Singh appellant had never visited the respondent bank on 1.7.2004 or on 3.7.2004 or on 5.7.2004. The payment of FDR No.288414 was made on 5.7.2004 under the signatures of Jasvir Singh appellant as the FDR was carrying instructions of either or survivor which means that one of the holders of the FDR could obtain the payment of the FDR on its maturity.
9. It was further pleaded that so far as the payment of FDR No.288294 was concerned, it was refused as Sukhdev Singh appellant No.3 one of the holders of this FDR was a guarantor in the loan account of Angrej Kaur, Jagtar Singh, Charan Kaur, Kirpal Kaur, Kauri, Nasib Kaur, Gurmal Kaur and Gurmej Singh alias Angrej Singh.
10. It was further pleaded that Sukhdev Singh appellant No.3 (guarantor) had not ensured the payment of the loan amounts by the persons referred to above. These borrowers and Sukhdev Singh appellant No.3 were requested for a number of times to make the payment but these accounts were declared as non performing accounts. The respondent bank acted under its legal right and withheld the payment of FDR No.288294 which was set off against the amounts outstanding against Sukhdev Singh appellant No.3 as guarantor.
11. It was further pleaded that payment of FDR No.288414 was received by Jasvir Singh appellant himself. It was denied if it was kept by the Manager.
12. It was further pleaded that before tendering the amount of FDR No.288294, the legal notice was served on Sukhdev Singh appellant on 5.7.2004 First Appeal No.1544 of 2004 4 before withholding the payment. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
13. Jasvir Singh appellant filed his affidavit Ex.A1. He also proved documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A13. On the other hand, Gurmeet Singh, Manager of the respondent bank filed his affidavit Ex.R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R26.
14. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 23.11.2004.
15. Hence, this appeal.
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2004 be set aside.
17. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent bank was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
18. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
19. The respondent bank has admitted that Jasvir Singh and Iqbal Singh appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.1,54,500/- with the respondent bank on 30.6.2003 in the fixed deposit receipt. The maturity date was 30.6.2004 and the maturity value was Rs.1,63,174/- (Ex.R23). This payment was received by Jasvir Singh and Iqbal Singh appellants by way of a voucher (FDR No.288414) and the amount of Rs.1,63,174/- was credited in account No.7538 of Jasvir Singh appellant. The credit slip has been proved as Ex.R22. Once the money of FDR No.288414 was credited into the account of Jasvir Singh, the appellants have no claim against the respondent bank.
20. It is also admitted by the respondents in the affidavit of Gurmeet Singh Manager that Jasvir Singh and Sukhdev Singh appellants had also deposited a sum of Rs.1,54,500/- with the respondent bank on 30.6.2003 in FDR No.288294 and the maturity value was Rs.1,63,174/- as on 30.06.2004. First Appeal No.1544 of 2004 5
21. It is admitted by the respondent bank that this amount was not paid to the appellants as Sukhdev Singh was a guarantor for some other persons and the amount was not paid by the borrowers. Therefore, the maturity value of Rs.163,174/- was not paid to the appellants.
22. This submission has been considered.
23. If FDR had been in the name of Sukhdev Singh appellant alone and if he was defaulter or guarantor then that amount of the fixed deposit receipt could have been adjusted by the respondent bank against the loan account in which Sukhdev Singh appellant was the guarantor or defaulter but in the present case, the FDR was in the joint names of Sukhdev Singh and Jasvir Singh. Jasvir Singh appellant had nothing to do with the loan account of Angrej Kaur, Jagtar Singh, Charan Kaur, Kirpal Kaur, Kauri, Nasib Kaur, Gurmal Kaur and Gurmej Singh alias Angrej Singh. Therefore, the amount in favour of Jasvir Singh could not have been adjusted by the respondent bank against the loan account of these persons. The respondent bank of their own diverted the amount of Rs.1,63,174/- in the loan account of those persons.
24. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent bank was that they had served a legal notice on Sukhdev Singh appellant on 5.7.2004 Ex.R18 in which it was suggested that the loan was outstanding against those persons since 24.8.1993 and under the deed of guarantee executed by Sukhdev Singh in favour of the respondent bank on behalf of those persons, he was liable to make the payment and accordingly, the payment of the FDR was withheld and was adjusted against the account of defaulters i.e. Angrej Kaur, Jagtar Singh, Charan Kaur, Kirpal Kaur, Kauri, Nasib Kaur, Gurmal Kaur and Gurmej Singh alias Angrej Singh.
25. This submission has been considered.
26. It has no merit.
27. First of all, the respondent bank was sitting silent since August, 1993 when these borrowers had become defaulters. No action was taken by the First Appeal No.1544 of 2004 6 respondent bank either departmentally or by filing a civil suit for recovery of the amounts from these persons. Therefore, the respondent bank had issued notice to Sukhdev Singh appellant on the same day i.e. on 5.7.2004 when the amount of this FDR was adjusted by the respondent bank. That amounts to no notice. Moreover, as discussed above, Jasvir Singh was one of the holders of that FDR but the respondent bank has fixed the liability on him also and deposited the entire money of the FDR towards the loan account of the borrowers which is totally illegal. Therefore, Jasvir Singh appellant was entitled to the amount of Rs.1,63,174/- as on 30.06.2004.
28. This appeal is, accordingly, partly accepted with costs of Rs.5000/- and the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2004 is modified and the respondent bank is directed to make the payment of Rs.1,63,174/- to Jasvir Singh and Sukhdev Singh appellants with interest @ 6% p.a. from 1.7.2004 till the date of payment.
29. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.05.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
30. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER May 31, 2010.
Paritosh