Punjab National Bank vs ANUMATI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 2.8,2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar in Complaint Case No. 179/1997.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant along with her husband took a fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000/- on 31.5.1988 for 84 months. In this fixed deposit, half of the amount was belonging to the complainant and the other half to the husband of the complainant. THE fixed deposit matured on 31.5.1995. When the complainant went to take the amount, she was told that her husband has taken a loan against this fixed deposit receipt and mortgaged the same in favour of the Bank. It is alleged that her husband never told this fact to her and the opposite party also did not inform her. She only came to know of this fact when she went to take the money. THE complainant is entitled to get half of the amount of Rs. 19,965/-. A notice was also issued to the opposite party on 26.5.1995 but nothing was done. It is further alleged that she is also entitled for interest at the rate of 17% per annum from 1.6.1995 on Rs. 19,965/-. The opposite party in the written version has alleged that on 30.5.1988 a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit. The fixed deposit receipt was pledged by the complainant''s husband after taking a loan from M/s. Verma Agro Industries. As soon as the amount is paid back, the fixed deposit receipt will be released. The complainant cannot demand the money. The Bank has a right to pay the amount to any one of the depositors as the payment was to be made on "either or survivor". The complainant is not the owner of half of the amount.

It is further alleged that the opposite party has also filed a Civil Suit No. 510/1995, Punjab National Bank v. Verma Agro Industries, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge I (Senior Division), Muzaffarnagar. A suit has been filed by the husband of the complainant, Sri Mam Chandra which has been rejected by the Court on 1.5.1996. A revision was filed in the Court of V Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 31.6.1996.

THE parties lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. THE learned District Forum, after considering the case of the complainant, directed the Punjab National Bank to pay Rs. 19,965/- along with 17% per annum interest from 1.6.1995 till the date of payment to the complainant. THE Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, Punjab National Bank has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the husband of the complainant alone could have pledged the fixed deposit receipt against the loan taken from the Bank or whether the consent of the complainant was also necessary for the same. It is in evidence that on fixed deposit receipt, the mode of payment is "either or survivor". This fact is mentioned in the form which was filled by the parties. This shows that on maturity the payment could have been made by the Bank either to the complainant or to her husband. It was not necessary that the fixed deposit should have been encashed by both the depositors, namely the complainant and her husband jointly. When the payment could have been made to a single individual in terms of the directions of the depositors, then the Bank was at liberty to accept the mortgage of the fixed deposit receipt on behalf of one of the depositors. The Bank was within its right to do so. Thus we find that the learned District Forum was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the husband of the complainant alone was not competent enough to mortgage the fixed deposit against the loan. This finding of the learned District Forum is not based on the evidence available on record and a wrong interpretation has been given to it by the learned District Forum. Thus on the basis of evidence, we come to the conclusion that Mam Chandra, husband of the complainant, was perfectly empowered to pledge the fixed deposit which was in the name of the complainant and her husband-. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.