STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. JAWAHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition arises out of the Order dated 6th October, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. By the impugned order, it dismissed the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner, State Bank of India. It may be mentioned here that the Revision Petitioner, was opposite party in the complaint filed by the present respondent-Jawaharlal, before the District Forum, Amarawati.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the complaint, the complainant had a Savings Bank Account with the opposite party-Bank. He withdrew Rs. 20,000/- from that Account and deposited the amount with the opposite party-Bank in two term deposits of Rs. 10;000/ - each on 9th April, 1995 vide Term Deposit Receipts Nos. 718633 and 718634 each for Rs. 10,000/-. At the time of these term deposits the Branch Manager of the Bank is said to have told the complainant to add one more name to the name of the depositor because if at the time of maturity of the deposits the complainant did not survive, then in that case, the person whose name was added would be able to recover the amount of these deposits. Accordingly, at the time of making the term deposits the complainant had added the nameof hisbrother, Jaglal Chunnilal Karanjekar. The date of maturity of the term deposits was show as 9th April, 1992 and the maturity amount in respect of each term deposit was shown as Rs. 21

(3.) THE Bank filed a counter contesting the claim of the complainant. It denied the allegation that the Branch Manager had persuaded the complainant to include the name of Jaglal also in the term deposits receipts. It was further pleaded that when the complainant approached the Bank to receive the maturity amount of the term deposits he was told by the Bank Manager that the term deposits were in the joint names of the complainant and his brother, and his brother jaglal had taken a loan from the Bank which was outstanding against him and, therefore, 50% of the term deposits amount would necessarily be adjusted towards the loan account of Jaglal. The complainant did not agree with the said proposal.