MOTI LAL vs State Bank of India

THIS appeal is against the judgment and order dated 12.1.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur in Complaint Case No. 528 of 1994.

ACCORDING to the complaint, his father Sri Ganga Prasad had a joint Account No. 8292 in the nature of "Either or Survivor" which was opened on 20.9.1984 and was to be operated by any one of them. Father of the complainant used to operate the account, as the complainant was in service out of city. In the month of March, 1994 the complainant''s father met with an accident and then was admitted in nursing home on 7.3.1994. At that time he was in condition of unconsciousness. The complainant/appellant was in need of money for treatment of his father. He went to the Bank and submitted withdrawal form for Rs. 10,000/- but the respondent Bank did not pay the amount to him. The complainant/appellant could not provide him better treatment facilities as a result he expired on the next day, i.e., 12.3.1994. The complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum with the above allegations and claimed Rs. 2 lacs as compensation along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

The opposite party/Bank filed written statement and averred therein that an account was opened by Sri Ganga Prasad, who was the father of the complainant, Moti Lal. The account in question was in the name of Ganga Prasad and was being operated by only Ganga Prasad, and the process of including the name of the complainant, Moti Lal, was not completed. The account was not in the joint nature. Therefore, there is no question of operation of the account by son of Ganga Prasad, who has filed the complaint. It was, therefore, averred that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

AFTER hearing both the parties the learned District Forum found no force in the complaint and accordingly the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in the appeal.

MR. R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and MR. P.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for respondent/Bank are present. We have heard both the Counsel and have perused the entire record. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Bank account in question was "Either or Survivor" nature in the joint name of the complainant and his father, but the opposite party/Bank did not allow the complainant to operate the account. Hence the complainant could not provide proper medical facilities to his father, who was injured in an accident. Consequently he could not save his father''s life because he had no money at that time. This is deficiency of service. The District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint. Learned Counsel for respondent/State Bank of India denied the allegations of the complainant/appellant and argued that it is incorrect the allege that the account No. 8292 was a joint account in the name of the appellant and his father. In fact the said account was opened in the name of Sri Ganga Prasad and remains single operated by Sri Ganga Prasad who was father of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that counter clerk made entry for the withdrawal of the said sum from the said account and forwarded the same for passing thereof of the same, but the complainant could not withdraw the money. Learned Counsel for the opposite party alleged that the counter clerk make a mistake and awarded the same to passing officer who rightly advised that unless and until the withdrawal form is signed by Ganga Prasad, no withdrawal can be allowed and likewise the Branch Manager of the Bank also advised the said fact. The account is in the name of Sri Ganga Prasad (now late).

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the photocopy of the cover of the passbook on which the name of the appellant is also written. LEARNED Counsel for respondent, S.B.I. objected to this and said that without completing the formalities required, it is not possible for the Bank to allow to withdraw any amount by the appellant.

WE are impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent (Bank) and find that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The net result is that appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 12.1.1996 passed by learned District Forum in Complaint No. 528/1994 are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Appeal dismissed.