RAJENDRA T. MEHTA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Presiding Judicial Member -This is an appeal filed by the complainant himself since he is aggrieved by the partial award passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban while allowing the complaint No. 310/2002 decided on 9.1.2008.

(2.) THE facts to the extent material may be stated as under: It was the case of the complainant in the Forum below that he had opened a joint account with Udeyraj Chandrika Singh bearing account No. 21783 in the Bank of India, Malad (East) Branch. The said account was to be operated with the signature of both the depositors. In other words, it was to be operated jointly by both the depositors. However, deceased Udeyraj Chandrika Singh had directed the O.P. Bank to encash four cheques involving total amount of Rs. 1,09,370 though the four cheques were signed exclusively by deceased Udeyraj Chandrika Singh himself. Therefore, complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of Bank and filed consumer complaint praying that the amount of Rs. 1,09,370 should be re -credited to his account with interest @ 18% p.a. and he also demanded Rs. 25,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000 towards costs. O.P. filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant. According to the O.P. three persons were having joint account and deceased Udeyraj Chandrika Singh was authorized to withdraw the amount singularly and, therefore, the Bank was not guilty of deficiency in service and, therefore, prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

(3.) ON the basis of documents and affidavits filed by both the parties and after hearing rival Counsels, the Learned District Consumer Forum gave finding that looking to the documents presented, it was clear that the bank account was joint account opened by Udeyraj Chandrika Singh and the complainant -Rajendra T. Mehta and it was to be operated jointly and not singularly or either of the two. The Forum below found that the Bank had not given any other proof to prove that either of the depositors can operate the said joint account. The Forum below, therefore, found the Bank guilty of deficiency in service, but the Forum below was of the view that the amount withdrawn by deceased Udeyraj Chandrika Singh from the joint account cannot be refunded to the complainant and, therefore, Forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. Bank to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 1,000 towards cost. Aggrieved by the inadequate relief granted the complainant himself filed this appeal.