ANUMATI vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

THIS revision petition has arisen out of the order of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, which, in turn, dismissed the order of the District Forum.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are as follows. The complainant along with her husband put in fixed deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- bearing receipt No. Q.D.O. 330945 for a period of 84 months on 31.5.1988 with the respondent Bank in joint names. The Fixed Deposit matured on 31.5.1995. It was the case of the respondent that the husband of the petitioner stood as guarantor for M/s. Verma Agro Industries, who took loan and mortgaged the fixed deposit. As the debtor did not return the loan, the respondent Bank adjusted the fixed deposit against the loan. The contention of the complainant is that the respondent has no right to adjust her half share in the fixed deposit as she is the joint holder of the fixed deposit. The District Forum after having adverted to the contentions passed the following order : "The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed that they will pay the half share of the said FDR bearing No. Q.D.O. 330945 i.e. Rs. 19,965/- p.a. together with interest at the rate of 17% p.a. to the complainant and Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs to the complainant within one month of this order."

On appeal by the Bank, the State Commission upset the order of the District Forum with the following observations : "The only question which arises for consideration is whether the husband of the complainant alone could have pledged the fixed deposit receipt against the loan taken from the Bank or whether the consent of the complainant was also necessary for the same. It is in evidence that on fixed deposit receipt, the mode of payment is "either or survivor". This fact is mentioned in the form which was filled by the parties. This shows that on maturity that payment could have been made by the Bank either to the complainant or to her husband. It was not necessary that the fixed deposit should have been encashed by both the depositors, namely complainant and her husband jointly. When the payment could have been made to a single individual in terms of the directions of the depositors, then the Bank was at liberty to accept the mortgage of the fixed deposit receipt on behalf of one of the depositors. The Bank was within its right to do so. Thus, we find that the learned District Forum was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the husband of the complainant alone was not competent enough to mortgage the fixed deposit against the loan. This finding of the learned District Forum is based on the evidence available on the record and a wrong interpretation has been given to it by the learned District Forum.

WE are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission. Moreover, it has been held by this Commission in a catena of judgments that the financial institutions have every right to protect their interests by taking conscious decisions. In this case also the Bank has taken a conscious decision, which cannot be faulted. In view of what has been discussed above we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and we uphold the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed.