Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 4 (UTT)

Bade Krishnaveni v. Canara Bank

2000-09-29

B.K.TAIMNI, C.L.CHAUDHRY, J.K.MEHRA, SUHAS C.SEN

body2000
ORDER Suhas C. Sen, President, : The Complainant and her mother, Smt Bode Audamma jointly deposited Rs. 22,000/and Rs. 10,000/- in fixed deposit with the Canara Bank. Bode Audamma died on 29.6.1990. The Complainant claims that she is entitled to the amount standing in the fixed deposit. The Bank is not paying• the amount to the Complainant even after the date of maturity. 2. The Respondent's case is that the husband of the Complainant, Bode Subbarama Reddy, had taken a loan to purchase a lorry from the Bank. On 5.6.1984 a joint letter was written by the Complainant and her mother authorising the bank to adjust the amount standing in the fixed deposit towards the loan account of the Complainant's husband. The bank adjusted the FDR amounts against Joan account and filed a suit for the balance amount in the Court of Subordinate Judge Kovur. Before the District Forum, the Complainant contended that the Bank had taken the signature of the Complainant and her husband, Boda Subbarama Reddy on various blank papers at the time of obtaining of the lorry loan. It was further argued that the Bank's suit filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kovur was dismissed on 28.11.1994. The District forum examined the documents filed before it and found for a fact that the Complainant had given authorisation to the Bank to adjust the FDR amounts towards the lorry loan of her husband in writing. The writings were exhibited as part of the case of the Bank. The question as to whether the authorisation documents were signed by the Complainant or not was not gone into by the District Forum. It was held that, whether the Complainant's signatures on the bank paper was forged or not or whether the complainant's husband had signed blank papers (Exhibit B-2) were questions which could not be decided by the District Forum in its summary jurisdiction. There were also other issues which could not be properly examined by the District Forum. The District Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint with liberty to seek redress in the civil Court. The State Commission, Andhra Pradesh, on appeal, agreed with and maintained the order passed by the District Forum. 3. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint with liberty to seek redress in the civil Court. The State Commission, Andhra Pradesh, on appeal, agreed with and maintained the order passed by the District Forum. 3. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum. The Fixed deposit made by the Complainant and her mother were adjusted against the loan taken by the husband of the Complainant on the authorisation of the Complainant and her mother. A suit for recovery of the balance amount of loan has already been filed by the Bank. The authorisation was in 'writing which was produced before the District Forum. Whether the documents are forged as alleged by the Complainant will have to be decided by some other Forum. 4. we are of the view that the District Forum has come to a right decision on the facts of this case. Therefore, the order of the District Forum and the impugned order passed by the State Commission do not call for any interference. 5. The District Forum directed that the Complainant will have the liberty to go to the civil Court to prove its case. That direction of the District Forum remains in force. The Complainant, if so advised, can seek remedy in civil Court in accordance with law. The Complainant may also apply for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Save as aforsaid, this Revision Petition is dismissed. We make it clear that we have not gone into the genuineness or correctness of the documents in question. 6. An apprehension has been expressed by the Advocate appearing for the Revision Petitioner that the original documents which have been filed in the District Forum or the State Commission may not be returned to him. There is no basis for this apprehension. We make it clear that if an application is made to the District Forum or the State Commission for return of any original documents, then the original documents will be returned to the Petitioner or his Advocate as the case may be.