CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs Kusum Agarwal

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 892 of 1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant on 30.7.1986 deposited a sum of Rs. 32,500/- in joint F.D.R. in her own name as well as in the name of her mother, Smt. Godavari Devi with Central Bank of India, Lucknow. This amount was deposited for a period of five years with the condition that the interest shall be payable quarterly. It is further alleged that the F.D.R. was payable either or survivor. THE complainant vide letter dated 25.11.1987 informed the Bank that the amount of F.D.R. should neither be paid to Smt. Godavari Devi nor any fresh F.D.R. be issued. It was also intimated that if any person approaches the Bank with this F.D.R. then the information be sent to her. Smt. Godawari Devi died in the night of 12/13 June, 1988. The complainant informed about this to the Bank and prayed that the interest should not be paid to any of the person except herself. After the maturity of the F.D.R. the complainant applied for renewal of the F.D.R. and for its transfer to Central Bank of India, Sahukara Branch, Bareilly where the complainant has her account. The Bank neither renew the fixed deposit nor paid the payment. The F.D.R. is with the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the Bank and hence the complaint has been filed.

The opposite party remained absent and did not file any written statement before the learned District Forum though it was served sufficiently. Hence the matter was decided ex-parte in favour of the complainant by ordering the appellant to return the deposited amount alongwith 11% per annum interest and pay cost of Rs. 3,000/-. If this order is not complied then the interest payable shall be 24% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum the opposite party, Central Bank of India has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the dispute is about the payment of interest from 1988 to 1991. According to the learned Counsel the account was in the name of Smt. Godawari Devi and Smt. Kusum Agarwal in which the interest of the fixed deposit was to be deposited by virtue of the directions issued by the persons who have deposited the amount in the fixed deposit. This plea has been taken in para 2 of the written statement. According to the learned Counsel the interest was paid regularly in the account which was indicated at the time of opening of the fixed deposit. As far as this controversy is concerned, the complainant had informed the appellant that the interest be paid to her and not in the account. When the complainant had issued instructions to the Bank-appellant, that the interest is to be paid to the complainant and to no other, then it was the duty of the appellant-Bank to pay the interest to the complainant. As Smt. Godawari Devi has died, therefore, the interest could not be credited in the account of Smt. Godawari Devi with Smt. Kamini. In that joint account the complainant had no share and the fixed deposit was payable to either or survivor. After the death of Smt. Godawari Devi, the survivor was the complainant and she had to be paid interest according to her directions. Even if before the death of Smt. Godawari Devi, there was some dispute between the two that ended after the death of Smt. Godawari Devi, and according to terms of agreement at the time of deposit, the amount is to be paid to the survivor, i.e. the complainant. The deposit of quarterly interest in the joint account of Smt. Godawari Devi and Kamini was against the instruction of the complainant, the non-payment of interest in terms of the instructions of the complainant the Bank has committed deficiency. Moreover, with the intimation of death for Smt. Godawari Devi the instructions given by them for deposit of the amount of interest in the joint account ceased. Therefore, in any view of the matter after the death of Smt. Godawari Devi, the complainant was the only person entitled for the interest. Thus the interest which has accrued to the complainant for the disputed period is to be paid by the appellant. The findings of the learned District Forum to this effect is perfectly correct and requires no interference. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the complainant.

LET compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order.

LET copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed with costs.