Manohar Bandopanth Belekar vs Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Vadgaon Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr.

An FDR with respondent No.1 bank for Rs.50,000/- was taken in the joint name of late Shri Bandopanth Balwant Belekar and respondent No.2 Smt. Sharada Ramchandra Belekar. Shri Bandopanth Balwant Belekar having died, the FDR proceeds were transferred by the bank in the account of respondent No.2. The petitioner had given a letter to the bank informing that he was going apply for a Succession Certificate and, therefore, the FDR proceeds should be withheld by the bank. Since the FDR proceeds were transferred in the account of respondent No.2, the petitioner could not get any share in that amount despite having obtained the Succession Certificate.

The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the respondent No.1 Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. By the impugned order dated 25.3.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission.

It is an admitted position that the FDR was taken in the joint name of late Shri Bandopanth Balwant Belekar and respondent No.2 Smt. Sharada Ramchandra Belekar. Since a joint FDR was taken, the bank was fully justified in transferring the FDR proceeds in the account of respondent No.2, she being the joint holder of the FDR with the deceased. Admittedly, there was no order from any Court prohibiting the bank from transferring the money to the account of respondent No.2. Even the Succession Certificate had not been obtained by the date on which the money was transferred by the bank to the account of respondent No.2. The case of the bank is that no letter requesting the bank to withhold the money on the ground that the complainant was applying for the Succession Certificate was received before the money was transferred to the account of respondent No.2, though according to the learned counsel for the complainant the letter was sent before the transfer. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the bank in rendering services to the complainant. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revision jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the revision petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner availing such legal remedy as may be open to him in law against respondent No.2 and in case he approaches the Civil Court, he shall be entitled to seek benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act if such a benefit is otherwise admissible to him in law. The revision petition stands disposed of.