Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 322 (UTT)

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. VIJAY RANI

2009-06-22

IRSHAD HUSSAIN, KUSUM LATA SHARMA

body2009
ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) : Both these appeals arise out of the one and the same order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 59/2005; Smt. Vijay Rani Vs. Punjab National Bank and consumer complaint No. 70/2005; Sh. Vinod Kumar Vs. Punjab National Bank, both of which were allowed and these complainants were held entitled to matured sum of the fixed deposits with interest according to the bank rules prevalent thereon, to be paid by the appellant – bank within the stipulated period. Condition imposed on the payment was that each of these complainants were directed to execute indemnity bond, in respect of the amount to be paid to them, in favour of the appellant – bank. 2. In deciding the complaints in favour of the complainants, the District Forum rejected the stand of the appellant – bank that the amount invested in the fixed deposits in the name of the wife and minor son, in fact, belonged to Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, an erstwhile employee of the appellant – bank and against whom, there were charges of embezzlement of the bank money, for which he was prosecuted by criminal court and against whom, a suit for recovery of money was also filed before the civil court and, as such, these complainants were not entitled to lay claim for the matured amount of the fixed deposits. This apart, in both the cases, the original fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of Sh. V.K. Goel and his wife Smt. Vijay Rani in consumer complaint No. 59/2005 and fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 10,000/- in the name of Master Naman Goel under guardianship of Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel in consumer complaint No. 70/2005, were not placed on record by the complainants, on the ground that original FDR’s were either misplaced or lost somewhere and on that basis, the appellant – bank took the stand that the claim based on xerox copies of the FDR’s, could not legally be maintained. The District Forum also rejected the plea in that regard, by observing that the bank had not placed on record its register of the FDR’s and, therefore, it could not be held that the amount of these FDR’s was not deposited with the bank or that the FDR’s alleged were forged and fictitious. The District Forum also rejected the plea in that regard, by observing that the bank had not placed on record its register of the FDR’s and, therefore, it could not be held that the amount of these FDR’s was not deposited with the bank or that the FDR’s alleged were forged and fictitious. It was also held that on the basis of criminal proceedings against Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, the erstwhile employee of the bank, it could not be held that the money invested in the FDR’s, was part of the embezzled sum and on that basis, the claim for matured sum of the FDR’s, could not legally be made by the complainants. In so far as the pendency of the civil suit for recovery of money from Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel was concerned, it has been held that on that account, the payment of the money due under the fixed deposit receipts could neither be deferred by the bank, nor its payment could be refused, by alleging that the money invested was part of the embezzled sum. 3. In the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant – bank highlighted these stands to assail the legality and propriety of the order impugned, whereby the complainants were held entitled to the matured sum under these FDR’s, as stated above. It need to be stated at the outset that it is well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship, that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor. Therefore, as and when on the maturity of FDR, the depositor lay claim of his money along with the accrued interest under the terms of the fixed deposit receipt, the bank is legally obliged to pay the same to the depositor. In the case of Anumati Vs. Punjab National Bank; IV (2004) CPJ 21 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the settled principle, by observing that bank had no right to refuse payment of amount deposited by bank’s customer/depositor. Therefore, apparently the District Forum passed the impugned order correctly in exercise of its jurisdiction and directed the bank to pay the matured sum of the FDR’s, which have not found to be fictitious or forged together with interest, if further payable on the matured sum according to the bank rules. Therefore, apparently the District Forum passed the impugned order correctly in exercise of its jurisdiction and directed the bank to pay the matured sum of the FDR’s, which have not found to be fictitious or forged together with interest, if further payable on the matured sum according to the bank rules. Since the original FDR’s were alleged to have been misplaced or lost somewhere, the District Forum thought it proper to ask for execution of indemnity bond by the complainants for the amounts to be received by them, in favour of the appellant – bank. That way, the interest of the bank, in any event, was safeguarded. 4. In so far as the charge of embezzlement against Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, the erstwhile employee of the bank was concerned, it was not at all possible in these proceedings to accept that the money invested in the FDR’s along with the wife and in favour of the minor son by Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel, was part of the embezzled sum and, therefore, the District Forum was fully justified in rejecting the contention raised in that regard by the appellant – bank. No doubt, in the civil suit filed against Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel by the bank, plea with regard to these FDR’s was, by amendment, taken and the complainants were also got impleaded in the Civil Suit No. 359/2002; Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Goel and another, out on that ground alone, the payment of matured sum of the FDR’s, in view of the settled legal position, could not have been deferred or withheld. The reason being that under law, it is accepted that the money in the FDR’s invested belong to the depositor, who were the complainants before the District Forum and who prayed for the relief, on the basis of the FDR’s, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, which refused to honour the FDR’s and pay the amount due under these to the complainants. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered view that there being no merits in these appeals, the same are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 336/2007.