ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE vs Mahabir Prasad Keshavdeo Kedia

THE complainant, late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia, his son, Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and his daughter -in -law, Mrs. Renu Kedia took a term deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs from the petitioner Bank. A perusal of the application form, which is available on page nos. 45 and 46 of our paper book, would show that the requisite application in this regard was submitted and duly signed by all the three applicants, though photographs of only the complainant, late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia was taken. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bank submits that since the son and daughter -in -law of the deceased complainant already had accounts with them, it was not necessary to take their photographs. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the FDR was obtained in the joint name and was duly signed by all the three applicants.

IT appears that the FDR was lost by the complainant, his son and his daughter -in -law and consequently, they requested the Bank to issue a duplicate FDR. A letter dated 17.11.2004 was submitted by all of them jointly to the Bank, agreeing to indemnify the Bank in the event of its sustaining any loss, by issuing the duplicate FDR. The duplicate FDR was also issued by the Bank in the joint name of all the three persons i.e. the complainant, his son and daughter -in -law.

THERE were certain dues payable by the son and daughter -in -law of the complainant to the Income Tax Department. Consequently, vide notice dated 07.05.2004, the concerned Assistant Commissioner of the Income Tax Department required the petitioner Bank to attach and remit a sum of Rs. 1,65,805/ - towards payment of the dues of Sh. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and a sum of Rs. 1,12,250/ - towards the dues payable by Smt. Renu Kedia. Vide letter dated 13.05.2004, the petitioner Bank informed the Income Tax Department that the FDR, which they were holding were in the joint names of late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia, his son, Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and his daughter -in -law, Mrs. Renu Kedia and sought instructions as to whether it had to remit only proportionate amount to the Income Tax Department. It was also informed to the Department that the original FDR was with the first account holder and normally, they require the original FDR to be surrendered before closing of the account. Vide letter dated 13.05.2004, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department informed that Bank that the notice issued by them was valid for joint accounts as well and in the absence of any specific information, the shares in such joint accounts may be presumed to be equal. The Bank was, therefore, requested to remit the amount in the name of Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and Mrs. Renu Kedia. Vide letter dated 14.05.2004, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department, referring to the clarification sought by the petitioner Bank informed it that the remission of money should be accompanied by a No Objection Letter from late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia, stating that the entire amount may be adjusted through the tax dues of Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and Mrs. Renu Kedia. This clarification was given on the aspect as to whether the entire amount of the FDR proceeds was to be paid to the Income Tax Department or not. The petitioner Bank, complying with the aforesaid notice of the Income Department remitted 1/3rd of the FDR proceeds against the dues of Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and 1/3rd of the FDR proceeds against the dues of his wife, Mrs. Renu Kedia. The remaining 1/3rd amount was kept by opening a separate FDR in the name of late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia. That FDR was later encashed by him.

BEING aggrieved from the act of the Bank in remitting 2/3rd of the FDR proceeds in the Income Tax Department, late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank, on the ground that they had merely complied with the instructions issued by the Income Tax Department. It was also pointed out in the reply that in fact the FDR was a joint FDR in the name of three persons namely late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia, Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and Mrs. Renu Kedia.

VIDE order dated 21.10.2008, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint, late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 16.04.2009, the State Commission allowed the appeal on the premise that the son and daughter -in -law of the complainant were his nominees only and it was not a joint FDR.

IN our opinion, considering the fact that the application for obtaining FDR was signed and submitted not only by late Sh. Mahavir Prasad Keshavdev Kedia, but also by his son Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and wife Mrs. Renu Kedia coupled with the fact that the application form for issuing duplicate FDR was submitted by all the three of them and duplicate FDR also came to be issued in their joint names, the conclusion drawn by the State Commission was faulty and cannot be sustained. In fact, a perusal of the application form would show that the clause relating to the appointment of a nominee was left blank meaning thereby that the depositors did not appoint any nominee in respect of the aforesaid FDR. In view of the notice received from the Income Tax Department, the Bank had no option, but to remit to it 1/3rd of the FDR proceeds against the dues of Mr. Vimal Kumar M. Kedia and 1/3rd of the FDR proceeds against the dues of his wife, Mrs. Renu Kedia. The complainant had failed to substantiate his plea that he was the sole holder of the FDR in question and the son and daughter -in -law were only his nominees. The documents available on record fully demolish the case set up by the complainant. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. The amount, which the petitioner Bank had deposited in compliance with the interim order of this Commission, be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest, if any, which had accrued on that amount. The revision petition stands disposed of.