SURABH SHARMA Vs. PRAMILA KUMARI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise out of a common order passed by the State Commission and as such they were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE complainant Pramila Kumari had approached the District Forum for direction to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Haridwar to pay the maturity amount of the FDRs along with interest w.e.f. 1.4.2006. In these proceedings, an application was filed by the present Petitioners to implead them as a party Respondents on the ground that the amount deposited in the FDRs do not belong to Smt. Shobhawati, nor it was deposited by her; that as a matter of fact, Shri Prem Chand Sharma grandfather had deposited the money in the FDRs and after the death of Shri Prem Chand Sharma, the said FDRs were converted into the name of Smt. Shobhawati and the complainant with mala fide intention got her name included in the FDRs without the knowledge of Smt. Shobhawati on either or survivor basis; that the complainant tried to withdraw the FDRs and the present Petitioners sent legal notice to the Bank not to pay the amount and that the Petitioners are initiating proceedings for grant of succession certificate regarding the FDRs in question before the Civil Court. This application was allowed by the District Forum. The said order was challenged by the Complainant before the State Commission and the State commission noted that in the application filed by the present Petitioner, it was alleged that by playing fraud, the complainant got her name inserted in the fixed deposit under the term "either or survivor". The State Commission relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Anumati v. Punjab National Bank, : IV (2004) CPJ 21 (SC), and held that in case of deposit held as either or survivor, the Bank cannot refuse to pay the amount to the survivor. The State Commission also took note of Regulation 45 ZB of the Banking Regulation Act (10 of 1949), which provides that Bank shall not take notice of the claim of any person otherwise the person or persons in whose name the deposit is held by the bank. It was also held that the dispute raised by the present Petitioner cannot be made subject matter of consumer complaint and the allegation of fraud cannot be gone into in summary jurisdiction of Consumer Fora and the Petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to them in law. The revision was accordingly allowed. This order is subject matter of challenge before us.

(3.) IN the light of the above, we do not find any merit in these revisions as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission. The revisions are dismissed with no order as to costs.