CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE



FIRST APPEAL NO.525/1998 Date of Filing:- 06/03/1998

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.145/1995 Date of Order:- 01/04/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, SOLAPUR



1) President,

The Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,

Solapur, having its office at 207/8/9 Gondfinch Peth,

Solapur, Tahsil-District-Solapur



2) Manager,

The Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited,

Solapur, Killa Branch, Solapur,

Tahsil-District-Solapur ... Appellants (Org. Opponents)

-Versus –



1) Smt.Mahadevi Nagappa Katte,

R/o 323, South Kasba, Solapur,

Tahsil-District-Solapur



2) Commissioner of Cooperation Co-operative Societies,

M.S. Central Building, Pune

Tahsil-District-Pune



3) District Deputy Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, Solapur,

Tahsil-District-Solapur ...Respondents (Org. Complainants)





Corum :- Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member,

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present :- Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, Adv. for the Appellant.

Mr.Shreeshail Sakhare , Adv.for the Respondent No.1

None present for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.



O R A L O R D E R

Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member



1) This is an appeal filed by the District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Solapur against the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.145/1995 decided on 28/1/1998 whereby, while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed O.P.No.4 General Manager of District Central Co-operative Bank, Killa Branch to pay to the complainant the sum towards fix deposit receipts dated 11/2/1991 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.500/- towards cost, the Org.O.P.No.4 has filed this appeal.



2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under :



3) The complainant had filed consumer complaint against Chairman and General Manger, District Central Co-operative Bank, Killa Branch and also impleaded Commissioner of Co-operation and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society Solapur. It was the case of the complainant Smt.Mahadevi Katte, that she had kept fixed deposit of Rs.20,000/- jointly in the name of herself and her father and mother. It was kept on 11/12/1984. Its receipt No. was 1013. It was for the period of six years and after six years i.e. on 11/2/1991, she was to get amount of Rs.40,000/-. Another deposit receipt was kept by her father jointly in his name and in the name of his wife Smt.Dhanwaa Sidramappa Baddal. It was for the amount of Rs.40,000/-. Third fixed deposit receipt was in the name of mother, father and her sister Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre. All these deposit receipts were kept on the same day i.e. on 11/12/1984. On 23/5/1994, her father Sidramappa Baddal expired and her mother Smt.Dhanwaa Sidramappa Baddal also expired on 31/12/1994. When her parents were alive they had withdrawn amount of Rs.40,000/- from F.D.R. Her sister Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre had also withdrawn another deposit receipt which was standing jointly in the name of herself and her parents. But because of dispute between the complainant and her sister the relations between sisters got strained and some property disputes are going on in the civil court. On account of that dispute and enmity her sister Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre is bent upon not to permit withdrawal of F.D.R. which is standing in the name of the complainant and her deceased parents. She filed objection with the Bank and therefore she was not given her deposit back though after death of her parents. As a surviving joint depositor she is entitled to get the said deposit under “Dam Duppat Scheme”. When approached, Bank told her to approach civil court and procure orders from the civil court. She has pleaded that Bank is clearly guilty of deficiency in service in not returning deposit to her because she is the sole surviving depositor out of three joint depositors, the two other her parents having expired. She therefore filed consumer complaint and claimed refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- with upto date interest and also prayed for cost of the complaint.



4) The O.P./Bank contested the complaint by filing written statement. The Bank pleaded that the deposit of Rs.20,000/- was kept jointly by Smt. Mahadevi Nagappa Katte, along with her father Sidramappa Baddal and mother Smt.Dhanwaa Sidramappa Baddal. So, she was not entitled to get the said amount exclusively. The Bank further pleaded that the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation. The Bank further pleaded that complainant had filed Special Civil Suit No.86/1991 against the Bank and on the ground of limitation it was withdrawn on 22/7/1992 with a permission to file fresh proceeding within two years from the withdrawal of complaint. This complaint has not been filed within two years and therefore the Bank pleaded that complaint is barred by limitation. The Bank further pleaded that her parents had informed the Bank that amount of deposit in question should not be exclusively given to the complainant. The Bank admitted as per terms and conditions of deposit receipt, the amount on maturity was payable jointly to three depositors or to the surviving depositor. But, since other two depositors objected for making payment, the amount of deposit was not paid to the complainant exclusively. The Bank further pleaded that Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre should have been impleaded in this complaint because on the basis of will she was claiming amount in question. It is for this reason the Bank directed complainant to approach civil court and to procure order from civil court. So, in refusing to pay the amount the Bank pleaded it is not guilty of deficiency in service. Bank also made it clear that it was not interested in the family disputes going on between the complainant and her sister. The Bank therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.



5) The District Deputy Registrar also filed written statement and denied the averments made by the complainant. According to him, since two of the three joint depositors expired and since one of the legal heirs was making claim on the basis of will executed by the father of the complainant, the complainant was rightly told by the Bank to procure order from the civil court.



6) Parties filed documents and affidavits on record. Considering the same, the Forum below held that complaint as filed by the complainant was within time. The Bank committed deficiency in service in not paying the amount of Rs.40,240/- on the deposit receipt no.1013 to the complainant. The Forum below also held that for mental agony the complainant was also entitled to get some compensation because Bank has given lot of mental harassment to the complainant. So, complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant and impugned award came to be passed. Aggrieved by the said award the Bank has filed this appeal.



7) We heard submissions of Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, Adv. for the appellant and Mr.Shreeshail Sakhare, Adv. for the Respondent No.1. Other respondents were not present.



8) This consumer complaint was allowed on 28/1/1998 and it appears that probate has been given to Smt. Jagdevi Dhotre, another sister of the complainant on 26/8/1999. However, the grant of probate would not in any way affect the case of the complainant in as much as order of the Forum has been passed earlier in point of time and probate has been granted in faovur of Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre, in 1999. Probate has been granted in respect of all the property of deceased Sidramappa Baddal and Smt.Dhanwaa Sidramappa Baddal and this complaint is confined to only one deposit which complainant had kept jointly along with her father and mother. We are concerned with deficiency in service on the part of appellant Bank. We are not concerned with the rights and the liabilities of respondent No.1 vis a vis her sister Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre and the property movable or immovable left behind by Sidramappa Baddal or his wife. So far as rest of the property is concerned civil court has already granted probate in faovur of Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre but so far as fixed deposit receipt is concerned, the Bank is guilty of deficiency in service because this deposit receipt No.1013 was kept jointly by Sidramappa Baddal, his wife and respondent No.1 Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte. It was joint deposit of Rs.20,000/-and under “Dam Duppat Scheme” it was payable on maturity to the survivor. If three joint depositors were surviving it would have been payable on the signature or discharge given by all the three joint depositors but when the deposit in question matured Sidramappa Baddal and his wife both had expired and only surviving joint depositor was respondent No.1 Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte and since deposit receipt was payable “either or survivor” the Bank should have given Dam Duppat amount on maturity exclusively to Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte respondent No.1 herein. The Bank was not concerned with the family dispute going on between respondent No.1 and her sister Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre. Simply because Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre had filed an application of objection objecting payment to be made to Smt.Mahadevi Katte, the bank was not supposed to entertain that objection in view of the clear cut mandate given by joint depositors that on maturity the amount should be paid “either or survivor” which has a special meaning in law as well as in banking parlance. “Either or survivor” means if either of the three is living the amount should be paid to the surviving person only. Since two of the three joint depositors had expired, the lone surviving depositor was Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte. So, whole of the amount due on that deposit on maturity was payable only to Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte as per stamp found on the said deposit receipt mandating payment to “either or survivor”. The Bank clearly committed deficiency in service in ignoring the mandate of joint depositors that payment should be made “either or survivor” and this mandate had been violated by the Bank itself to please or to appease the objector Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre. The Bank had no business or no right in law to entertain such objection coming out of family feud between the warring sisters. The Bank was having clear cut mandate in law that it should pay deposit on maturity of the deposit receipts to “either or survivor” and surviving depositors was no else than Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte, the respondent No.1 herein. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Forum below rightly directed the Bank to pay the amount in deposit to Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte, respondent No.1 to the exclusion anybody else. The Bank committed grave mistake in not honouring the mandate of joint depositors given in unequivocal terms that payment of this deposit receipt should be made to “either or survivor”. The Bank was not at all justified in directing complainant to procure order from civil court. Thus, Bank was clearly deficient in service so far as this deposit receipt is concerned. The Bank should not have indulged in such activities directing parties to approach civil court. In fact the Bank should not have entertained the objection taken by Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre. We are conscious of the fact that civil court has granted probate to Smt.Jagdevi Dhotre. However, amount under this deposit is payable by the Bank only to respondent No.1 Smt.Mahadevi N.Katte, who may be required to make some payment in terms of will probated by the court and left behind by their father Sidramappa Baddal. That is different aspect of the matter. We are not concerned with it. Suffice it to say that the order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper and must be upheld. In the circumstances, repelling all the attacks tried to be made by Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, counsel for the appellant, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal and the order passed by the Forum below is surely sustainable in law. Hence, we pass following order.

O R D E R

1) Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-payable by the appellant to the respondent No.1.



2) Amount deposited by the Bank in the Forum below as per order passed by this Commission on 12/8/1998 be paid to the respondent No.1 forthwith.



3) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.









( Smt.S.P.Lale ) (P.N.Kashalkar )

Member Presiding Judicial Member