BARAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. Vs. KIRAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed present petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') challenging impugned order dated 11.5.2009 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'State Commission') vide which it allowed First Appeal No.2036 of 2006 filed by Respondent/Complainant.

(2.) Brief facts are, that respondent filed a consumer complaint against petitioner bank, inter alia stating, that she and her father-in-law -Brijgopal Gupta had taken a joint FDR from petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- on 31.10.02. The FDR was to mature on 31.1.04. It is stated, that since FDR was taken jointly by her and her father-in-law, therefore she was entitled to half amount of the matured FDR. After maturity of FDR, petitioner had not made any payment to the respondent. Rather a sum of Rs.1,03,662/- was directly sent to the Income Tax Department, as Income Tax Deptt. had made a recovery against her father-in-law. The remaining amount of Rs.20,358/- was sent on 7.2.04 through cheque. Since, FDR was joint one, therefore on maturity she is entitled to half amount of the matured FDR. Respondent has no concern with recovery of the Income Tax Deptt. which was made against her father-in-law. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed, that since maturity amount of FDR is Rs.1,24,211/-, she is entitled to half of that amount.

(3.) In its reply, petitioner has admitted, that there was joint FDR in the name of respondent as well as her father-in-law. Admittedly, sum of Rs.1,03,662/- was paid to the Income Tax Deptt. as demand was raised against Brijgopal Gupta. It is further stated, that since FDR was joint in the name of respondent as well as her father-in-law, therefore, petitioner was right, if payment of dues had been made to the Income Tax Department It is further stated, that respondent is not entitled to any notice and notice was given to Brijgopal Gupta before making payment to the Income Tax Deptt. Hence, no case and complaint is liable to be dismissed.