V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN vs Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank

THE case of the complainant Mr. Chandrasekharan is that in 1979 he invested a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in FDs with the 2nd opposite party-Indian Bank, Tanjore Branch for a period of six years ending in 1985 in the names of himself, Mrs. Srimathy - his wife and his sister-in-law Mrs. K. Savithri. He directed Mrs. Savithri to coordinate with the Bankers she being a local resident of Tanjore and also to act as a care taker of relevant papers and the FDs. THE Branch Manager assured that the FDs on maturity would be reinvested with the ac-. crued interest under the terms identical with the initial deposits in 1979. THE complainant''s wife C. Srimathy died in 1990. THE complainant went to the Bank in 1991 along with Mrs. Savithri for reclaiming the entire amount of FDs with accrued interest. It was then found that the renewed FDs of 1985 were renewed on maturity during 1991 for a further periods of one to three years in 12 different FDs in the names of K. Savithri, and 3 .others who were unconnected with the original deposits made in 1979, and the complainant''s name has been left out. This was a gross violation as the complainant had never authorised the 2nd opposite party-Bank to transfer the FD amounts of the complainant to anybody else''s name. Thus the Bank has committed gross dereliction of its responsibilities and deviated from the contractual obligation breaking the laws. On realising the mistake, Mrs. Savithri then handed over all the FDs issued unauthorisedly in her name along with three others, duly discharged in favour of the complainant he being the legitimate original depositor. But the Bank did not make immediate payment of the amounts due against the 12 FDs to the complainant. All efforts made by the complainant to get the amount proved futile. THE complainant then received a letter dated 30.6.95 from the opposite parties stating that the authorisation given by Mrs. Savithri in favour of the complainant for the withdrawal of the amount was retracted by her alleging that coercion and undue influence had been exercised over her by the complainant, and hence the Bank were unable to comply with the request. On these allegations, pleading that he is the real owner of the deposit amounts and he is entitled to the entire amount and that illegally and unreasonably the opposite party is refusing to pay the amounts to him and therefore they are guilty of deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties for payment to the complainant the entire amount due under the said FDs with interest thereon @ 24% per annum and also Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony.

THE opposite parties in their written version contended that the amounts were deposited under the style of "Either or Survivor "OR" Anyone or Survivor" and therefore as requested by Mrs. Savithri the renewals were made in her name and others'' name. THEy further contended that the complainant had knowledge of the same. THErefore, the complainant cannot seek to get the deposit amounts for himself and thus there is no merit in the complaint and hence it is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. The points that arise for consideration are : (1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ? (2) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ? (3) To what relief, if any, the complainant will be entitled

Point No. 1 : It is not in dispute that originally the deposits were made in the names of the complainant, his wife and his sister-in-law in 1979. In 1985, the deposits were renewed in the names of all the said 3 depositors. It is not in dispute that the complainant''s wife Srimathi died in 1990. In 1991, the deposits were renewed in the names of Mrs. Savithri and three strangers, and the complainant''s name had been omitted. This, according to the complainant, has been done without his knowledge and without reference to him, and it is against the law and also the contractual obligations. Now, in the complaint, the complainant seeks for an order of payment of the entire amount due under the deposits to him. But, admittedly as per records Mrs. Savithri is one of the original depositors. The complainant seems to say that the entire amounts originally deposited belonged to him. But that cannot be accepted in the absence of the said Mrs. Savithri before us. However, on considering the entire records in the matter, it appears to us clearly that the opposite parties, viz., Indian Bank, Main Branch, Tanjore had acted wrongly in the matter of renewal of the deposits in 1991. In this connection, the "Manual of instructions - Vol. IV - Deposits (Volume-I) Term Deposits "of Indian Bank, was brought to our notice. It is not in dispute that some deposits were made under the style of "Either or Survivor" and some under the style "Anyone or Survivors". In the said manual, Clause 3(1) deals with the accounts maintained under the style of "Either or Survivor" or "Anyone or Survivors or Survivor". A reading of this clause clearly shows that in such deposits any one of the depositors may renew the deposit in the same names. Clause 47 relates to addition, deletion, substitution of names in Fixed Deposits. As per this clause branches are permitted to add/delete and substitute names in Fixed Deposits subject to the following guidelines. (i) Where the deposit has been made in the name of one person or in joint names of two or more persons the name of another can be added with the consent of all the depositors. (ii) Where the deposit has been made in the names of two or more persons, the name of one or some of them can be deleted or substituted with the consent of all the depositors. From these instructions, it is manifest that renewal of the deposits can be done only in the names of all the depositors and any deletion or substitution of depositors is to be made it could be done with the consent of all the depositors. According to the complainant he had been kept in the dark and the renewal of the deposits has been made without his consent or knowledge. The opposite party seems to contend that the complainant had knowledge of the renewal and he did not demur but there is according to the complainant once he came to know about absolutely nothing to show that it is true. Therefore it appears very clear that the opposite parties, may be in collusion with the other depositor, Savithri have renewed the deposits wrongly in the name of Savithri along with strangers. Apart from the above noted instructions, in the manual instructions the said act of the opposite party is very much against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service vis-a-vis the complainant. No one has received any part of the deposit amount and the entire deposit amount is still with the opposite parties-Bank. In these circum stances, the appropriate remedy for the complainant would be, as provided under Section 14(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, to remove the said defect or deficiency in the services of the opposite parties. In other words, the opposite parties have to be directed to set right the wrong renewal of the deposits in the names of Savithri and strangers by renewing the deposits in the names of the complainant and Savithri soas-to take effect from the date of the renewal of deposits in 1991. It was brought to our notice that Savithri had filed an original petition in the District Forum against the Bank-the opposite parties herein for payment of the deposit amount to her. Payment to her would depend upon her proof that the deposit amount belong to her. In the present petition we are concerned whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties vis-a-vis the complainant who was admittedly one of the original depositors, as per records.

POINT No. 2: - As regards the question of limitation, the case of the opposite parties is that according to the complainant he came to know about the alleged deficiency in service in December, 1991 and February, 1992 but the complaint has been filed only on 8.9.95 and therefore it is barred by limitation. The complainant would submit that all along he had been agitating against the wrong done by the opposite parties. The wrong act of the opposite parties pointed out above is a continuing one and as such the cause of action is a continuing cause of action. Therefore, in our view the complaint is not barred by limitation as contended. Point No. 3 : - In the circumstances of the case we think that there is no need for ordering any compensation.

IN the result therefore the opposite parties are directed to correct the wrong renewal of the deposits made in 1991 in the names of Savithri and strangers by renewing the deposits in the names of the complainant and Savithri, and to make such correction so as to take effect from the matured dates of the deposits made in 1985 and in accordance with the terms of deposit in 1985. The opposite parties are to carry out the said direction within one month from today. Considering the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Direction passed.