RANJEET SINGH TALWAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred for quashment of the order dated 11-4-2005 Annexure P- l, passed by the office of Banking Ombudsman.

(2.) SHORT facts relevant for the purpose of the petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a sole proprietor of M/s. Raghbir Singh and Sons. He availed an overdraft facility from the State Bank of India to the extent of Rs. 6 lacs against one FDR of Rs. 4 lacs and 2 FDS of Rs. 1 lac each. The FDRs were pledged with the bank to secure the overdraft limit. Maturity value of FDR was Rs. 6,71,620/- (against FDR of Rs. 4 lacs) and Rs. 1,67,905/- (against each FDR of Rs. 1 lac ). Maturity date of FDR was 3-1-2005. Petitioner No. 1 on 24-11-2004 received an information from the Bank that the facility of overdraft limit was reduced to Rs. 2. 60 lacs from Rs. 6 lacs. In turn, the petitioners informed vide Annexure P-2, dated 24-11-2004 that the overdraft limit of Rs. 6 lacs was granted against the fdrs worth Rs. 6 lacs. Petitioner No. 1 expressed apprehension about tampering of the accounts and security. A report was also lodged with the Police station Omti, District Jabalpur, vide Annexure P-3. Petitioners further came to know that his father Shri Raghbir Singh got the FDR encashed in a prematured manner. According to the petitioner No. 1, the FDR was gifted to him by his lather on 1-4-2002 vide notarially registered gift deed and it could not be encashed by the respondent No. 2 alone in the impugned manner. The petitioners were, thus, cheated by respondent No. 1. A complaint was submitted before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, which was withdrawn and the proceedings before the office of the Banking Ombudsman, were initiated. It has been specifically contended that the FDR of Rs. 4 lacs was initially in the names of respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 and, later on, the name of petitioner No. 1 was also added on it. On 8-7-2004, the Bank (respondent No. 1) deleted the names of petitioners without any information. Copy of FDR after the wrongful changes were made on 8-7-2004 is on record as annexure P-ll. Respondent No. 1, in order to save itself, procured a letter from respondent No. 2 directing the bank to recredit the deposit to his account.

(3.) THE Banking Ombudsman vide order dated 11-4-2005 (Annexure P-1) decided the complaint of the petitioners against him on the ground that there were instructions of "former or survivor" in the subject FDR. Accordingly, it has been found by the Banking Ombudsman that nothing wrong has been committed by the Bank.