PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs TEJ RAJINDER SINGH

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 5.1.96 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein who was opposite party against the order dated 16.6.94 of the District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh directing the opposite party to release payment of both Fixed Deposit Receipts along with interest to the complainant.

THE facts which have been found established on record by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission are these. F.D.R. dated 2.12.85 in the sum of Rs. 28,000/- for a period of 5 years and F.D.R. dated 6.5.89 in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- for a period of 24 months were issued by the opposite party in the name of Tej Rajinder Singh and Jarnail Singh payable to either or survivor. Jarnail Singh died on 8.9.90 Tej Rajinder Singh, complainant, approached the opposite party for payment of the matured value of the F.D.Rs. and also furnished the copy of the death certificate of Jarnail Singh. The payment was not released by the opposite party to the complainant on the ground that Jarnail Singh had guaranteed repayment of loan along with interest granted to M/s. Techno Crate (India) and a civil suit had been filed on 1.8.90 by the opposite party for recovery of the dues of the opposite party. The District Forum came to the conclusion that after the death of Jarnail Singh the complainant had acquired the status of survivor and as such he became lawfully entitled to receive the payment of or after 8.9.90 and to deal with the FDRs as absolute owner. It was also found that Jarnail Singh had not contractually created any lien on the amount of FDRs. It is also established that Tej Rajinder Singh was not impleaded as a defendant in the said suit either originally or as a legal representative of Jarnail Singh. Although an application for attachment before judgment in respect of the said two FDRs was made in the suit but no orders were obtained from the Court or it may be that the Court did not grant it. Both the District Forum and the State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant became full owner in respect of the two FDRs on the death of Jarnail Singh and also on the date (21.6.91) of the filing of the complaint and the denial of payment of the maturity amount with interest is deficiency in service. The main submission of Mr. S.K. Pruthi, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that the State Commission ignored the fact that after filing of the appeal before it and before its final disposal an attachment of the FDRs was issued on 22.3.95 in execution of the Decree against M/s. Techno Crate (India) and Others including Jarnail Singh and thus the amount of the FDRs were not payable to the complainant and no direction could be issued as the matter was sub-judice. This argument is attractive in the first flush but cannot stand close scrutiny. The copy of the decree-sheet of the Civil Court has not been filed on the record. The copy of the warrant of attachment dated 22.3.95 details in the schedule of property, the two FDRs reading as follows: "10. F.DRs bearing No. 349/85 of dated 2.12.85 for Rs. 28,000/-in the joint names of J.D. No. 3 and Sh. Raj Rajinder Singh. 11. Another FDR bearing No. 88/89 of dated 6.5.89 for Rs. 10,000/- in the joint names of J.D. No. 3 and Sh. Raj Rajinder Singh, legal heir of J.D. No. 3 with PNB Sector 22-D, Chandigarh."

AS already noticed it is established that Tej Rajinder Singh was not impleaded as a defendant in the suit either originally or as a legal representative of Jarnail Singh. Jarnail Singh is shown in the order of attachment as J.D. No. 3 and obviously in the decree-sheet he must have been shown as J.D. No. 3. Jarnail Singh died on 8.9.90 and his legal" representatives were not brought on record. The decree against dead person is nullity and is entitled to be ignored completely. A decree in the name of dead person is a nullity and subsequent prayer in the execution application to bring on record legal representative cannot make it valid. In this case the death was known to the Bank but it is immaterial whether the death was known at that time or not. It bears repetition the decree against a dead person is a nullity which cannot be enforced. The State Commission, therefore, rightly ignored the passing of the decree against a dead person.

IT is next contended that the Bank has lien in law on all moneys standing to the credit of the guarantor Jarnail Singh and on any securities in the hand of the Bank belonging to the guarantor under its control. This argument is fallacious. It is admitted by the Counsel that the payment instructions on the FDRs were "Either or Survivor". With the death of Jarnail Singh, Tej Rajinder Singh became absolute owner by survivorship. The FDRs were not held by the Bank from 8.9.90, the date of death of Jarnail Singh as belonging to the guarantor. The District Forum as well as the State Commission are perfectly right in holding that the complainant became full owner of the two FDRs on the death of Jarnail Singh and had a right to maintain the complaint because of deficiency in service in paying the amount. In law, Banker''s lien can properly arise only if the FDRs belong to the guarantor which are held by the Bank. If the FDRs in the possession of the Bank do not belong to guarantor as in this case Jarnail Singh had no interest left on his death and are owned by the complainant, then no right of lien can be exercised by the Bank. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission. The Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.