BRAJ NARAIN DWIVEDI vs GORAKHPUR REGIONAL GRAMIN BANK

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.11.1998 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 941/1997.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Sri Shyam Narain Dwivedi and opposite party Sri Brij Narain Dubey are real brothers. THEir father Sri Mahant Dubey had opened an account jointly with the complainant and his brother, Brij Narain Dubey in Gorakhpur Regional Gramin Bank, Kath Kunya, Distt. Kushinagar. This joint account was in the form of Special Term Deposit Scheme and the amount involved was Rs. 32,000/-. THE amount was to mature on 11.10.1993 but the father of the complainant, Sri Mahant Dubey died in the year 1991. After the death of his father, the complainant was entitled to half the amount of the matured value. THE amount so deposited in the F.D.R. would have been received by either or survivor. THE opposite party No. 1, Gorakhpur Regional Gramin Bank in collusion with opposite party No. 2, Brij Narain Dwivedi made the payment of Rs. 44,320/- to the opposite party No. 3, whereas the complainant was entitled to half the amount so paid to the opposite party No. 3. THE complainant came to know of it through a letter of opposite party No. 1 on 26.8.1997. THE complainant was also informed that the opposite party No. 1 had deposited the amount with the opposite party No. 2, Gramin Bank through Special Term Deposit Scheme in his Account No. 322517 although the complainant was entitled to half of the matured amount. THE complainant, therefore, filed a claim before the District Consumer Forum claiming half of the amount so deposited along with compensation and cost. THE opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement before the learned District Forum admitted that on 10.10.1990 father of the complainant and the opposite party No. 3 had opened a joint Special Term Deposit Account of Rs. 32,000/-. THE opposite party No. 3 had received the proceeds of the maturity value amounting to Rs. 44,320/- on 11.10.1993. THE amount was paid to the opposite party No. 3 by the Bank because any depositor could have received the proceeds of the matured amount as per terms and conditions of the scheme. THE opposite party No. 3 thereafter deposited this amount in his special term deposit account which was to mature on 12.10.1996. THE maturity amount on the date of maturity of 12.10.1996 is Rs. 47,028/-. THE Bank, opposite party No. 1 had paid this amount to opposite party No. 3. In a separate written statement before the District Forum, opposite party No. 3 also admitted the payment of Rs. 44,320/- from the opposite party No. 1 on 11.10.1994. It was also admitted by opposite party No. 3 that one-half of the amount was belonging to the complainant which was given to him and the amount deposited by him with the Bank in his special term deposit receipt No. 322517 is his own money and the complainant has nothing to do with this. THE complainant is, therefore, not entitled to any claim. THE parties led their respective evidence before the learned District Forum, who after hearing the case of the parties, decreed the complaint and ordered that payment of half of his special term deposit amount of receipt No. 322517 shall be given to the complainant. Aggrieved of the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party No. 3, Brij Narain Dwivedi has come in appeal. We have gone through the evidence on record. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that this is a dispute between the two brothers for division of amount and as such it is not a consumer dispute. THE F.D.R. No. 322517 was exclusively in the name of the appellant and he was exclusively entitled to receive the payment and opposite party No. 3, Shyam Narain Dubey has no business to make any complaint against the aforesaid amount. THE Bank has no power to withdraw any amount deposited by the customers nor the District Forum has jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the right, title or interest of 3rd parties interse. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that his father had opened a joint account on 11.10.1990 and that account was in the name of the father and the two brothers, appellant and the respondent. THE F.D.R. matured on 11.10.1993 and without giving any information to him, Brij Narain Dwivedi approached the Bank and withdrew the amount of Rs. 44,320/-, the matured value of Rs. 32,000/- by misrepresenting that the consent of Shyam Narain Dubey has been taken and thereafter Brij Narain Dwivedi deposited this amount of Rs. 44,320/- in a separate account vide S.T.D.R. No. 322517 in his name, whereas the amount was to be shared by both the brothers on fifty : fifty basis. A perusal of the evidence goes to show that the special term deposit account was opened by the father of the appellant jointly with complainant and respondent No. 3. The brothers have also been joint account holders. The father of the appellant died in 1991 and the proceeds of the deposit along with maturity value was taken by Sri Brij Narain Dubey alone (opposite party No. 3), and later on Brij Narain Dwivedi opened another account in the same Bank and deposited the amount so received in his name exclusively. Thus the dispute is limited to the fact that the initial account opened in 1990 was in the names of three persons, but the proceeds were collected by Sri Brij Narain Dwivedi alone. The complainant, Shyam Narain Dubey, was deprived of his share. The District Consumer Forum has directed payment of half of the share amount which was deposited by the appellant, Brij Narain Dwivedi, in his own name. On record is the letter of the Branch Manager of opposite party No. 1 in which the payment of the matured amount in respect of special term deposit receipt No. 322517 was withheld and the opposite party Brij Narain Dwivedi was asked to take the consent of the complainant, Shyam Narain Dubey.

A careful scrutiny of evidence on record will go to show that Special Term Deposit Receipt No. 322517 is exclusively in the name of Brij Narain Dwivedi, s/o Late Mahant Dubey. Therefore, the account holder is only one person who is respondent No. 3 in this case. Since the initial special term deposit receipt No. 48792 of 1.10.1990 was in the name of all the three persons and the proceeds of the same along with maturity value have been alleged to have been taken by only one person, who is opposite party No. 3 in the complaint case, it was the duty of the Bank to have seen on 11.10.1993 whether being a joint account, Brij Narain Dwivedi was entitled to take the amount exclusively. It was at a later stage that the complainant came to know that this amount has been taken away by the appellant, his own brother and that is why he has demanded half of the amount to be given to him. Since the initial account was a joint account and the maturity value was taken away by respondent, Brij Narain Dwivedi, who opened a separate account and got the F.D.R. issued exclusively in his name, no direction should have been issued by the District Consumer Forum. The receipt as stated above of the F.D.R. is in the name of Brij Narain Dwivedi alone and the Consumer Court cannot decide the share of the complainant at this stage when the earlier amount in the joint name has been withdrawn by one person concerned alone and later on another account has been opened. In the circumstances, this does not appear to be a consumer dispute and the parties should have gone to the appropriate Forum for division of the share. At the moment the F.D.R. is in the name of the appellant only and the appellant cannot be compelled by the Consumer Forum to part away any share from the amount which is exclusively in his name. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum are liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed. Since the F.D.R. is in the name of Brij Narain Dwivedi alone, he alone is entitled to receive the proceeds of F.D.R. alongwith maturity value. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant shall be entitled to receive the proceeds of the deposited amount alongwith maturity amount and due interest thereon. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.