ANDHRA BANK vs W.M. THIRUNAVUKKARASU

THE opposite party, Andhra Bank, Vellore against which an award has been passed is the appellant. THE case of the 1st complainant (1st respondent herein) is that a Fixed Deposit of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was made in the names of himself and his son 2nd complainant (2nd respondent herein) with the opposite party Bank under the title "Either or Survivor", for a period of 15 months and 25 days with cumulative interest at 10% per annum. THE son''s name was included because of the 1st complainant''s old age. THE maturity value would be Rs. 9,113.20 on 30.9.90. This amount is liable to be paid to "Either or Survivor". THE 1st complainant presented the deposit receipt in the opposite party Bank duly discharged by him and his son on a stamped receipt for payment on 1.10.90. THE 1st complainant was told by the opposite party that the deposit amount has been frozen by the Central office, and they returned the deposit receipt to the 1st complainant. According to the 1st complainant, the said refusal of the opposite party for payment of the matured amount to him is deficiency in service. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to pay the maturity value of the amount of Rs. 9,113.20 with further interest on the principal of Rs. 8,000/- at the rate of 18% from 1.10.90 till payment and for directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 8,000/ - towards compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered.

THE opposite party contended that the amount deposited belonged to W.T. Seshachalam the 2nd complainant and since he was a staff member in the opposite party Andhra Bank, he was granted the staff rate of interest i.e.,1% more than the normal rate. THE said W.T. Seshachalam the 2nd complainant while he was working in the Madras Branch, committed misappropriation of Rs. 3,25,165/-. THErefore, in order to safeguard the interest of the Bank and general public, the Central office of the opposite party freezed all the accounts of the said Seshachalam then standing in his individual name as well as joint names carrying the staff rate of interest. THEy further contended that the case involved various mixed questions of law and facts. THErefore the matter cannot be decided in a Consumer Forum. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that since the deposit is titled "Either or Survivor" even if the said Seshachalam the 2nd complainant had committed misappropriation as alleged by the opposite party, nothing prevents the father the 1st complainant from claiming the amount. On this finding, the District Forum granted an award directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs. 9,113.20 with further interest on the principal amount of Rs. 8,000/- at the ruling rate of interest at 18% per annum from 1.10.90 till payment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for physical suffering and mental pain. It also awarded Rs. 200/- as costs.

Now in the appeal, after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that there is nothing that warrants interference with the said finding of the District Forum. We are not concerned in this matter as to who is the owner of the deposit amount. It is a fact that the amount has been deposited in the joint names of the father and the son. May be the son was guilty of misappropriation as stated by the opposite party and, therefore, as far as he is concerned the opposite party has a right of lien over any deposit made in his individual accounts and also may be over ordinary joint accounts. But we are now concerned with the joint account made in the names of the father and the son under the title "Either or Survivor". In the case of "Either or Survivor", when the deposit has matured, when either of the joint depositors asks for refund of the maturity amount submitting duly discharged receipt, unless there is any objection raised by the other joint depositor, he will be entitled to receive the amount. The opposite party is bound by the terms regarding the repayment of the amount. Having undertaken to repay the amount to "Either or Suvivor", they are bound to repay the amount to the father the 1st complainant who has approached the Bank with the duly discharged receipt signed by both the joint depositors. They cannot refuse payment on the ground that the son has committed misappropriation of their funds and therefore they have got a lien over the amount. They may have a lien with the amount in his individual name or even ordinary joint names, but the amount with which we are concerned stands in the joint names of both of them and as regards the terms of repayment, it shall be paid to either of them, i.e., whoever comes to the Bank after the maturity with the duly discharged receipt. This being the position, the refusal of the opposite party Bank to pay the amount to the father is clearly a deficiency in service as held by the District Forum. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal.

ACCORDINGLY the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.