ICICI BANK LTD Vs. GEETA KATHURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, impugns the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2012, passed by the learned Trial Court whereunder the suit of the respondents has been decreed for a sum of Rs.8,17,753.00, along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 10% p.a.compounded annually on the decretal amount, w.e.f. 15.09.1998 till the date of realization.

(2.) The admitted facts which emerge from the record and are necessary for adjudication of the present appeal may be noted at the outset. The respondent nos. 1 and 2, who were both senior citizens, approached the appellant/bank for the issuance of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a sum of Rs.8,00,000.00. The application for issuance of the FDR was signed by both the respondents with a specific request that the FDR be issued in their joint name. Based on their written request, on 05.05.1998 the appellant bank issued an FDR bearing no.445466, in the joint names of the respondents which was to mature on 03.08.1998. The FDR was encashed by the appellant bank, shortly after its date of maturity, by issuing a pay order in the name of Ms. Geeta Kathuria/respondent no.1, which pay order was deposited in a new bank account opened in the said respondent's name with the Punjab & Sind Bank/respondent no.3. On 11.12.1998, the respondent no.2/husband of respondent no.1, approached the appellant bank to enquire about theinterest accruingon the aforesaid FDR, which amount he required for payment of advance tax, and was shocked to learn that the said FDR had already been encashed on 14.09.1998, purportedly on the basis of an alleged authority letter dated 13.11.1998; this letter issued on his letter head was alleged to have been signed by him authorising one Mr.Satish to collect the pay order in the name of the respondent no.1. The respondents denied ever having issued any such authority letter or having opened any new bank account in the Punjab & Sind Bank and, therefore, made a representation to the appellant bank requesting that the entire FDR amount be paid to them.

(3.) Based on this representation, the appellant bank is stated to have made a complaint with the local police resulting in the registration of FIR No.1105/1998. It further transpires that on the request of the appellant bank, the account in the respondent no.3 Bank, in which the FDR amount had been deposited, was frozen. However, by that time, a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00, already stood withdrawn from the said account by a person unknown to the respondent. Despite the respondents' repeated requests, the appellant bank did not pay the FDR amount to them, thereby compelling the respondents to file a suit for recovery on the ground that the appellant had been negligent in discharging its duty. This suit of the respondents has been decreed by way of the impugned judgment.