CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



First Appeal no. 1286/2008 Date of Filing: 26/09/2008

Consumer Complaint No.381/2008

District Consumer Forum: Mumbai Suburban Date of Order: 27/07/2009



Mrs. Vijeta Vikas Katkar, Appellant

W/o- Mr vikas Sakharam Katkar, (Org.Complainant)

393, Chigwar Niwas, Gaothat Road no.1,

Cchembur , Mumbai- 400 071.

V/S.

The Brnach Manager, Respondent

State Bank of Hyderabad, (Org.Opp.Party)

Plot No.12 A, Sreekant, 1st Road,

Chembur, Mumbai- 400 071.



Corum : Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present: Adv.Shri S.A.Oak for appellant.



:- ORAL ORDER :-

Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 10/09/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.381/2008, Mrs. Vijeta Vikas Katkar V/s. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban (Forum below in short).

In the instant case one bank deposit of Rs.50,000/- was kept with respondent/opposite party/Bank by Ms Sushila Sakharam Katkar and Ms Aruna Sakharam Katkar, who are respectively mother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant/Ms Vijeta. Said deposit was kept on 09/02/2001 and maturity date was 09/02/2004. After date of maturity, on 19/02/2004 an application was moved, apparently on behalf of the depositors, to add name of complainant/

Ms Vijeta as a joint holder of the said deposit. Accordingly, acting on the said application, name of Ms Vijeta was added on 19/02/2004 itself as one of the depositors. Subsequently, claim was made towards maturity amount of said deposit. Bank asked to comply requirements including production of succession certificate or letter of administration, whichever is applicable since, the bank in view of suspicious circumstances which arises since the date of application to add the name of Ms.Vijeta and the date on which one of the depositors/Ms. Arun died was the same. Admittedly, on that date mother-in-law/Ms.Sushila was pre-deceased. Upholding the contention of the bank and holding that there is no deficiency in service, the complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the complainant.

We heard Adv. Shri S.A.Oak for appellant. Respondent served but absent. Perused the record.

In the instant case, the maturity date was 09/02/2004. After the date of maturity, application for incorporation of the name was made. Admittedly,

Ms Sushila was pre-deceased and died as submitted by Ld.Counsel Shri Oak, in the year 2006 prior to the consumer complaint was filed. On maturity, the deposit was renewed on 11/02/2004 for the further period up to 08/02/2007. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank that suspension arose, since the application for incorporating the name of the complainant was made on the same date on which Ms Aruna died. Incorporation of the name of additional depositor is to be made by the existing both depositors but, on the date on which application was made, one of the depositors died. Hence, the suspition raised is prima-facie valid and entry incorporating the name of the complainant being doubtful, action taken by the bank asking for compliance in the form of succession certificate or letter of administration as may be applicable cannot be faulted with. It is the submission of Ld.Counsel for the appellant that once the name was incorporated, bank was under obligation to pay to the complainant, since amount is payable to “Any or Survivor”. Looking back to the circumstances, palpably, the stand taken by the bank cannot be said as erroneous or smelling arbitrariness and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on part of the Bank. Hence, the complaint is rightly stood dismissed by the Forum below.

We find no fault with the impugned order. We make it clear that remedy in the Civil Court or any other competent Court, if available can be taken by the complainant. We find the appeal is devoid of any substance and pass the following order:-



:-ORDER-:



1. Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member

Nbh