Decided on December 30,2010

Nirmal Thakur Wife Of Jagdish Chand Sharma Appellant
State Bank Of India And Ors Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh passed in Consumer Complaint No.323/2006, dated 25.03.2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by holding that the appellant had failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of respondent. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the appellant had remarried respondent No.2 on 2nd February, 2001 and after her marriage, she sold her house of his first husband alongwith land to the tune of Rs.10 lacs and she also received ex -gratia and other deposits of her husband, who had died in the year, 1995. Upon the assurances of respondent No.2, she invested Rs.6 lacs belonging to her vide 12 fixed deposits of Rs.50,000/ - each with respondent No.1 by way of joint account with the respondent No.2. The aforesaid deposits were made in two stages in the joint account of which Rs.3,00,000/ - were deposited on 21.4.2001 vide six fixed deposit receipts. The date of maturity of the said fixed deposit receipts was 17.4.2004. The maturity value of each fixed deposit receipt was Rs.66267/ -.
(2.) IN the complaint, it is asserted that an application was also made to opposite party not to allow the withdrawal of the said amount to any one, except the complainant, herself. It is asserted that the opposite party No.2 had played a fraud, as much as, he had deposited this whole amount of Rs.6,00,000/ - in his own account and then he got it shifted in joint account in the form of fixed deposit receipts, thereby showing that the whole amount belonged to him. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 fraudulently in connivance with the officials of opposite party no.1, withdrew a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ - without her consent and knowledge. Upon this, when she made an application to the bank for transfer of some of the F.D.Rs to State Bank of India, Branch Yol Cantt. and to withdraw the amount of two F.D.Rs, but the Bank Manager tampered with six F.D.Rs and wrote upon them "payable jointly and appended his signatures by over writings on the F.D.Rs bearing no.521326 to 52330 and 521332. The Bank Manager then returned the F.D.Rs to her on the plea that these F.D.Rs cannot be allowed to be withdrawn, since the opposite party No.2 has stopped their payment. The above said acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.
(3.) IN this background, complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for deficiency of service on the part of respondent and an amount of Rs.2 lacs have been claimed as compensation on account of harassment, mental tension, torture and humiliation suffered by the appellant at the hands of the respondent. The respondent No.1 had resisted and contested the claim of the appellant by alleging that there is no deficiency of service on its part and it was pleaded that the respondent No.2 had got released the payment of 6 FDR Nos.521246 to 521251 on maturity as the same were payable to respondent No.2 being former and as per FDR the amount was to be payable either to the former or survivor. It was also specifically denied that the Bank Manager had tempered with these FDRs as alleged by the appellant payment of 6 FDRs bearing Nos.521246 to 521251 were correctly made to the respondent No.2 and as such there is no deficiency in service on its part.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.