Nirmal Lega vs Nationwide Investments Pvt Ltd

HEARD Counsel for the petitioner who urged before us that the respondent could not unilaterally appropriate the amount of the FDR without the concurrence of the complainant/petitioner and in this respect reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Anumati v. Punjab National Bank, IV (2004) CPJ 21 (SC)=I (2005) BC 345 (SC)=VI (2004) SLT 358.

THE complainant had taken FDR for Rs. 1,00,000 on 5.4.1998 which was renewed from time-to-time. The last renewal was on 5.4.2003 and the same was to mature on 4.4.2004 - the maturity amount being Rs. 2,12,797 with 11% p.a. Admittedly, the husband of the complainant who was Director in the Respondent-Company with whom the amount was deposited under the FDR, had taken loan of Rs. 1,25,000 on 26.7.1998 for which security of the said FDR was given. The lien of the OP was marked and duly endorsed by the complainant on the original FDR dated 5.4.1998. When the fresh FDR was made, the husband of the complainant took the FDR to take the signatures of the depositor/complainant, but it was not returned back with the endorsement of the lien. In the meantime, the husband of the complainant had expired. When the complainant applied for the maturity value of the FDR, the OP informed that the loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000 taken by the husband of the complainant for which lien had been created against the FDR in question was required to be adjusted against the loan account. The loan account was to the tune of Rs. 3,08,918 and, as such, the OP adjusted the same against the FDR maturity value of Rs. 2,69,927 and a sum of Rs. 38,941 was waived by the OP. In these circumstances, the complainant approached the District Forum.

THE District Forum directed payment of maturity value of the FDR as also a sum of Rs. 10,000 for physical harassment, mental agony and pain besides cost of Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses. This order was challenged by the OP before the State Commission.

THE State Commission noticed that on the original FDR, lien had been marked and duly endorsed by the complainant in respect of loan of Rs. 1,25,000 taken by her husband who was Director of the OP. The State Commission also noticed that in respect of the same matter a civil suit had been earlier filed by the complainant, but it was withdrawn on 12.2.2009 i.e. to say before the decision of the complaint. It was also found by the State Commission that the renewed FDR was collected by the husband of the complainant who was Director of the Respondent Company for taking signatures of his wife, but the same was never returned and in the meantime, the husband of the complainant died on 21.1.2004. The lien which had been created and accepted by the complainant on the original FDR would continue unless the lien was otherwise satisfied or the entry of the lien in the original FDR had been deleted. In this view of the matter, the OP had not committed any deficiency by adjusting the amount of the lien as against the FDR in question. The ruling of the Apex Court cannot be applied to the fact situation in the present case since the fact situation and controversy before the Apex Court was altogether different. In the case before the Apex Court, the issue raised was whether a fixed deposit jointly owned with an "either or survivor" clause can be pledged by one of the account holders with the Bank and whether the Bank can adjust the amount of fixed deposit against such pledge without the authority, knowledge or concurrence of the other account holder.

IN view of the above, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the order passed by the State Commission in setting aside the order of the District Forum. The revision is accordingly summarily rejected with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.