Bal Krishan Aggarwal vs RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD.

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his son Purshottam Aggarwal had two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) for Rs. 50,000 in the joint name of the complainant and his son Sh. Purshottam Aggarwal, which was renewed from time to time by respondent Bank. When on 2.10.2003 the petitioner/complainant approached the Branch for his money, he was informed that the said FDRs have been pledged by his son for obtaining a loan. Since he was not getting money, a complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 1,36,594.20 ps. along with interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent Bank filed an appeal which was allowed and complaint was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel an amicus appointed by us on behalf of the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner and the perusal of the material on record, there is no disputing the fact that FDRs were in the joint name of the father and the son and prima facie, a letter was given to the Bank under the signature of the complainant stating therein the factum of encashing the FDRs, in case the loan/overdraft is not paid. The State Commission returned a clear finding that the loan was obtained by one of the beneficiaries of the FDRs, namely, Purshottam Aggarwal, son of the complainant with the consent and connivance of the complainant. On perusal of record there is no dispute that there is a document bearing the signature of the complainant giving authorisation to the Bank to encash the FDRs for adjustment against the loan/overdraft account. It is the case of the complainant that, that undertaking was not signed by him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be said that, at best there would be some differences between the father and the son. The document is on record and if father has some problem with his son he should seek relief from somewhere else. The Bank cannot be faulted for acting according to the banking practice based on a document signed by the complainant. We are in full agreement with the reasoning advanced by the State Commission on the subject and find no merit in this revision.

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the revision petition stands disposed of. Revision Petition disposed of.