ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) Common question of fact and law being involved in both these revision petitions, these are disposed of by this common order. 2. Complainant – revisionist Smt. Pramila Kumari Mishra filed consumer complaint Nos. 104/2007 and 105/2007 against her bankers, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Haridwar and Bank of Baroda, Haridwar, on account of refusal by the banker to pay her the matured sum of the fixed deposit receipts. The deposits were under the term “either or survivor” and were in the joint name of the complainant and her mother Smt. Shobhawati, who had died on 07.08.2005. 3. In these complaints, Sarv Sri Saurabh Sharma and Sameer Sharma, both sons of Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma (deceased), claiming themselves to be the legal representatives of their deceased grand-mother Smt. Shobhawati, moved applications for their impleadment in the consumer complaints, so that they may contest the claim for matured sum, illegally made by the complainant Smt. Pramila Kumari Mishra, the daughter of Smt. Shobhawati – deceased. In the application, it was alleged that by playing fraud, complainant Smt. Pramila Kumari Mishra got her name inserted and included against the fixed deposits under the term “either or survivor” and, as such, she alone was not entitled to the matured sum of the FDR’s. 4. The District Forum by the impugned orders passed in both the complaints, allowed these impleadment applications and directed the complainant to implead these legal representatives as opposite parties in the complaints, on the premise that these applicants have had legal interest and could succeed to the right arising out of the fixed deposits in the name of their grand-mother. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, complainant filed these revision petitions on the ground that those applicants were not necessary parties and their non-joinder would not render complaints incompetent, in view of the fact that the FDR’s were issued on terms “either or survivor”. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, complainant filed these revision petitions on the ground that those applicants were not necessary parties and their non-joinder would not render complaints incompetent, in view of the fact that the FDR’s were issued on terms “either or survivor”. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we see merit in these revision petitions, for the reason that the fixed deposits are on terms, “either or survivor” and in the event of death of one of the co-depositor, namely, Smt. Shobhawati, the survivor, the complainant Smt. Pramila Kumari Mishra, would prima facie be entitled to the matured amount of the FDR’s. We are supported in our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anumati Vs. Punjab National Bank; IV (2004) CPJ 21 (SC) and wherein it has been held that “either or survivor” clause in account means amount payable by bank on maturity of fixed deposit, may be paid to either of account holders by bank, in order to obtain valid discharge and the bank has no right to refuse payment of amount to the survivor among the two, in whose name, the deposits were made with the bank. The Regulation 45ZB of The Banking Regulation Act (10 of 1949), also provide that the bank shall not take notice of the claim of any person other than the person or persons, in whose name, the deposit is held by the bank. Therefore, the dispute raised by the other L.R.’s of Smt. Shobhawati – deceased, could not be made subject matter of the consumer complaint and the allegation of fraud can not be gone into in the summary jurisdiction of a consumer fora and those applicants would be at liberty to take such other legal course in the matter, as may be available to them. The District Forum did not take into account these legal aspects of the matter in deciding the applications of the third parties, as their non-joinder would not render the complaints incompetent. In other words, the Forum below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the applications of the third parties for impleadment by the impugned orders dated 11.01.2008 and, as such, these orders can not legally be maintained and are liable to be set aside. 6. Revision Petitions are allowed. In other words, the Forum below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the applications of the third parties for impleadment by the impugned orders dated 11.01.2008 and, as such, these orders can not legally be maintained and are liable to be set aside. 6. Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.01.2008 passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint Nos. 104/2007 and 105/2007, are set aside and the applications for impleadment filed by Sarv Sri Saurabh Sharma and Sameer Sharma, are hereby dismissed. The District Forum shall proceed to decide the consumer complaints on merit and according to law. No order as to costs. 7. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of Revision Petition No. 10/2008.