PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SHAM BAHTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 3.2.2006 of State Commission, Delhi dismissing appeal against the order dated 18.8.2001 of a District Forum whereby petitioner bank was directed to disburse the amount of three FDRs with up-to-date interest and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the respondents.

(2.) In short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these, respondent No. 1/complainant opened fixed deposit account vide receipt bearing No. 712941 dated 16.3.1996 for a sum of Rs. 65,403 with maturity date as 1.2.1997 and maturity value of Rs. 73,611 in her name and in the name of her son-respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2. Respondent No. 1 alleged that despite several visits the ptitioner did not encash the said FDR. She had other two FDR Nos. 712938 and 712939, both dated 16.3.1996 of Rs. 50,000 each and these FDRs were yet to mature. In the complaint, it was prayed that petitioner/opposite party-bank be directed to encash the three FDRs and pay Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation for mental agony as also cost. In the written version the issuance of the three FDRs in the joint name of the respondents was not disputed. However, it was pleaded that respondent No. 2 is the Director in Sensational Chit Fund, partner in Sapna Agencies and Proprietor of Friends Traders. Respondent No. 2 had taken loan on their behalf and on being asked to clear the dues, the present complaint was filed by respondent No. 1. It was also pleaded that the respondent No. 1 did not approach the bank for encashment of the fixed deposit.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. Rajesh Kumar for the petitioner was that the Bank has filed four suits against the company/firm wherein respondent No. 2 is the Director/partner/proprietor for recovery of the dues and one of such suits has been decreed on 7.5.2007 by an Additional District Judge, Delhi. According to him, petitioner is entitled to have the proceeds of FDRs, in question, adjusted towards the amount oustanding against respondent No. 2. Copies of three FDRs placed on record would how that these are in the joint names of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Order of District Forum notices that neither of these FDRs was pledged either by respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 in connection with raising loan by respondent No. 2, with the petitioner bank. Order further notices the observation that it is difficult to believe that without presenting the FDR for encashment, the respondent No. 1 would have filed the complaint with the grievance of non-encashment of FDR. This finding has been affirmed by the State Commission. It is pertinent to mention that plea of the bank having lien over the proceeds of FDRs which has now been raised, was not taken specifically in the written version by the petitioner. Case pleaded in written version was that on respondent No. 2 being asked to clear the dues, the complaint was filed and respondent No. 1 did not approach the bank for encashment of the FDRs. In absence of plea of lien, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. No order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.