KASTJRI-/ vs MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BICANER

THE unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum, Tonk has filed this appeal against the order dated 17.8.91 passed in Complaint Case No. 146/91 by which the complaint was dismissed. Facts leading to this appeal are few and simple.

THE complainant is Smt. Kasturi Devi widow of Jagannath resident of Padliya, Tehsil Kekri, Dist. Ajmer. THE opposite party is Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Deoli. THE complainant has alleged that the complainant and her husband obtained special term deposit receipt dated 6.6.80 for a sum Rs. 5,000/- for 90 months. THE interest payable was 10% p.a. THE amount became payable on 6.12.87. THE amount together with interest payable was Rs. 10,490/''-. One of the terms of the deposit was that the amount of Special Term Receipt (STR) would be payable either to the complainant or to Jagannath or survivor. In other words the amount of the receipt was payable to the holders of the receipt "either or survivor". THE complainant''s husband is said to have died on 28.4.88 at the village Padliya. After the dead the complainant went for taking the amount after the maturity of the STR. She submitted death certificate. A notice through Counsel was also served but the opposite party-respondent insisted for the production of the succession certificate. According to the complainant succession certificate was not necessary for the reason that the holders of the receipt were complainant herself and her husband and it was payable to either or survivor. As her husband had died, she was entitled to take the amount of the STR. It was brought to the notice of the opposite party that she is not claiming the amount of STR as heir. She is claiming the amount in her own right. She is claiming the amount as depositor or survivor, Jagannath had no daughter or son and Jagannath''s mother had died before the death of Jagannath. She, therefore, filed the complaint before the District Forum on 8.2.91 for Rs. 15,986/- which consist of Rs. 10,490/- amount of STR, Rs. 3,996/- interest from 6.12.87 upto the date of the filing of the complaint @ 12% p.a. and Rs. 1,500/- as expenses for coming and going, notice etc. With the complaint, the complainant submitted photo copies of STR, death certificate, Bank''s letter dated 10.12.90, certificate of Sarpanch Khejri, letter dated 1.3.90 of the Zonal Office, part of the pass-book of the personal account of the complainant, application dated 29.11.90 and copies of the letters dated 22.1.90, 23.5.90 and 2.4.90.

The opposite party Bank contested the complaint. It, however, admitted the deposit of the amount by STR. A plea was taken to the effect that the husband of the complainant during his life time had written to the opposite party that the complainant has contacted a second marriage and, therefore, she is not entitled to take any share in his property and as such she is not entitled to the amount. It was also said that Jagannath has also written to the Bank as the complainant has contacted second marriage she is not entitled to get the amount and during the processing of that Jagannath died. On receipt of the notice, the complainant was informed to produce succession certificate and it was pressed that until she produces succession certificate the amount cannot be paid to her. Objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint were taken under the head additional pleas. In para No. 10 of the additional pleas it was stated that the complainant has contacted Nata with J. Lal S/o Ramchand and she is wife of Jagannath so amount should not be paid. Parties did not produce any evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum passed the order as stated above. It dismissed the complaint.

WE heard Mr. G.C. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant as at that time no body had appeared on behalf of the respondent. However, Mr. Anant Kasliwal learned Counsel for the respondent has appeared as is apparent from the order-sheet dated 10.7.92 Mr. Agarwal strenuously argued that the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum was illegal and that a wrong approach has been made by it which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was not at all necessary for the District Forum to have examined the question whether the complainant had contacted a second marriage or that she has gone in nata with J. Lal or that Jagannath had declared that she has ceased to be his wife and he is not entitled to any share in his property or for that matter to the STR. Let us consider the material part of the STR. It is in the names of Smt. Kasturi Devi Jagannath payable to either or survivor and it is dated 6.6.80. Its maturity value is Rs. 10,490/-. It is also written HAMARA DUC Number 1 AUR 6. It is thus clear that the receipt is in favour of the complainant but nowhere it is mentioned that she is wife of Jagannath. The other holder is Jagannath. Holders of the receipt are two and the amount is payable to either or survivor. Admittedly, Jagannath had died and, therefore, Smt. Kasturi Devi is entitled to the payment or as survivor. In support of the version of the case, the opposite party did not give any affidavit. It cannot be said that the complainant had contacted second marriage and gone in nata particularly when the complainant has stated that she and her husband deposited the amount and that Jagannath is not survived by any son or daughter and his mother died during his life time. She has filed the complaint as widow of Jagannath. In terms of the receipt, the complainant is entitled to the amount of STR No. 001590 dated 6.6.80. On the basis of that, the amount was payable to either or survivor and she is one of the holder of the receipt out of the two holders. The District Forum was, therefore, not right in dismissing the complaint of the complainant on the grounds on which it did. The complainant is entitled to the maturity value of STR No. 001590 dated 6.12.87. Its maturity value was Rs. 10,490/- about which there is no dispute. The complainant is entitled to get this amount from the opposite party. The failure to pay the amount to the complainant constituted deficiency in service within the meaning of Sec. 2(l)(g) of the Act. The complainant has wrongfully been deprived of the amount of Rs. 10,490/-. The amount should have been paid to the complainant on the maturity date or to her husband but her husband had died and the amount of Rs. 10,490/- remained with the Bank after the date of maturity. The complainant has suffered loss of interest on this amount and, therefore, she is to be compensated. The opposite party is liable to pay interest by way of compensation from 6.12.87 until the date of payment on Rs. 10,490/- @ 12% p.a. It is, therefore, ordered that the opposite party-respondent shall pay Rs. 10,490/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 6.12.87 until the date of payment. One month''s time is allowed to the opposite partyrespondent from the date of the receipt of the order to make the payment of the entire amount as aforesaid failing which resort will be made to Sec. 27 of the Act. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order dated 17.8.89 passed in Complaint Case No. 146/91 by the District Forum, Tonk is set aside. The complainant-appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 10,490/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 6.12.87 until payment.

THE appeal is allowed as indicated above. THE opposite party respondent shall pay Rs. 500/- as costs of the appeal to the complainant-appellant. Appeal allowed with costs.