Lipina Das vs Urban Co Operative Bank Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by Lipina Das (Minor) and Smt.Lilima Das, her mother (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 '') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission '') in Appeal No.129/2002 decided in favour of Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Respondent herein.

IN their complaint, Petitioners who were original complainants before the District Forum had contended that on 28.12.1992, Petitioner No.2 had deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- in Samrudhi Reinvestment Scheme for a period of 72 months with a maturity value of Rs.27,206/- in the name of Petitioner No1, her daughter who is a minor and a certificate was issued in the name of the Petitioner No.1 stating that Petitioner No.2 was her nominee. On maturity of the said certificate, Petitioner No.2 approached the Respondent/Bank on behalf of Petitioner No.1 for release of the matured amount but the same was not released in spite of repeated requests. Petitioner No.2 being a poor widow, therefore, approached the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/Bank be directed to release the amount of Rs.27,206/- being maturity value of the deposited amount with interest from the date of maturity i.e. 28.12.1998 till realization, Rs.3 lakhs towards mental and physical suffering and litigation costs. Respondent on being served filed their reply in which it was admitted that an amount of Rs.13,000/- had been deposited in Petitioner No.1 ''s name by Petitioner No.2 but stated that it was justified in not paying the maturity amount on the stipulated date since this amount had been adjusted against the unpaid loan of Rs.22,000/- taken by Petitioner No.1 ''s father (and Petitioner No.2 ''s husband) late Shri Harekrushna Dash. In this context, it was explained that Petitioner No.1 ''s late father had also deposited a sum of Rs.24,000/- in the same Scheme with the Respondent/Bank but since this deposit was not made a lien for the above loan, on maturity, Petitioner No.2 withdrew the entire maturity value of the deposit made by her late husband by furnishing an Indemnity Bond dated 16.12.1992 wherein as per Clause 5(c) she agreed that Respondent/Bank shall have the right to set-off any amount payable by her to the Respondent/Bank against the amount of any deposit made by her in the Respondent/Bank. It was under these circumstances that the maturity value of Rs.27,206/- was adjusted against the unpaid loan taken by the Petitioner No.1 ''s late father. District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by them, allowed the complaint by concluding that Respondent/Bank was not legally justified in adjusting the maturity amount due to Petitioner No.1 against the unpaid loan taken by her late father since it was not a joint account with Petitioner No.2. District Forum therefore, directed the Respondent/Bank to pay the Petitioners, Rs.27,206/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 29.12.1998 till realization, Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation costs.

BEING aggrieved, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal by observing as under: "There is no dispute that Harekrushna Dash deposited Rs.24,000/- with the appellant-bank under the Samrudhi Reinvestment Scheme and got the certificate. The date of maturity of the certificate was Oct.8, 1994. He had also availed a loan of Rs.22,000/- from the appellant bank on April 8, 1988 against the Samrudhi deposit made by him but the deposit was not made lien for the loan. Respondent No.2 withdrew the entire maturity value of the Samrudhi deposit made by her late husband furnishing an indemnity bond wherein she had agreed to make payment of any amount payable against the Samrudhi deposit made by her husband. The indemnity bond is dated Dec.16, 1992 which is on record. Clause-5(c) provides that the appellant-bank shall have the right to set off any amount payable by her/them to the appellant-bank against the amount of the deposit made by her husband. In view of the aforesaid commitment made by the respondent No.2, no wrong was committed by the appellant-bank in adjusting the maturity value of Rs.27,206/- payable to her. "

HENCE , the present revision petition. Counsel for Petitioners was present. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Since service is complete, it was decided to proceed with the case ex parte. Counsel for Petitioners contended that the State Commission erred in concluding that in terms of the Indemnity Bond executed by Petitioner No.2 on 16.12.1992, Respondent/Bank was given the authority to adjust the unpaid amount of the loan taken by Petitioner No.1 ''s father against the matured amount in Petitioner No.1 ''s deposit. State Commission did not taken into account the fact that this was not a joint account of Petitioner No.1 and 2 but was solely in the name of Petitioner No.1 and therefore, the Indemnity Bond given by Petitioner No.2 could not include any account in which Petitioner No.2 was not an account holder as in the instant case. Respondent ''s contention that Petitioner No.2 after withdrawing the maturity value of Rs.24,000/- deposited by her late husband, had deposited Rs.13,000/- out of this amount in the name of Petitioner No.1 was not proved by any evidence to establish this fact. Therefore, as per provisions of the Indemnity Bond, Respondent/Bank could have recovered the amount only from Petitioner No.2 and not from Petitioner No.1. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for Petitioners and have gone through the evidence on record. The fact that the Petitioner No.2 had got deposited Rs.13,000/- with the Respondent/Bank by opening an account in the name of Petitioner No.1, her minor daughter, the maturity value of which was Rs.27,206/- is not in dispute. Further, it is a fact that Petitioner No.1 ''s father had also separately deposited Rs.24,000/- in a similar Scheme with the Respondent/Bank and had also taken a loan from Respondent/Bank for Rs.22,000/-. He passed away before repayment of the said loan and admittedly, Petitioner No.2 being the legal heir of her late husband after furnishing an Indemnity Bond in which one of the conditions was that Respondent/Bank shall have the right to set-off any amount payable by her to Respondent/Bank against the amount of her deposit, withdrew the entire amount of Rs.24,000/- on maturity. There is, however, no evidence that a part of this amount was invested by her in Petitioner No.1 ''s name in the Samrudhi Reinvestment Scheme. It is also not in dispute that the amount of Rs.13,000/- deposited by Petitioner No.2 in the name of Petitioner No.1, her minor daughter, was solely in Petitioner No.1 ''s name and was not a joint account of both Petitioners. In view of the above facts, we find substance in the contention of Counsel for Petitioners that the Respondent/Bank was not justified in withholding the amount of Rs.27,206/- being the maturity value of the money due to Petitioner No.1 by adjusting the same against the outstanding loan of Petitioner No.1 ''s late father. As per the Indemnity Bond, this amount could have been adjusted only against any deposits held by Petitioner No.2 in her own name with the Respondent/Bank and could not be extended to Petitioner No.1 ''s account. We, therefore, allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission. The order of the District Forum is restored. Respondent/Bank is directed to pay the Petitioner, Rs.27,206/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 29.12.1998 till realization, Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation costs within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.