SYNDICATE BANK Vs. SUSHMITA DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent was duly served for the date 01.06.2017 and vakalatnama had been filed on her behalf. However, neither she nor her Counsel is attending to court and notice of default was also issued to her. Today also, none is present on behalf of the Respondent. The matter is old related to year 2012 and hence, arguments on behalf of the Petitioner are heard.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent and her husband had a joint account with the Petitioner Camp Branch Pune. The Bank Account number was 8258/25 (NRE). Husband of the complainant Respondent had opened Three Fixed Deposit Accounts of sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35,000/- in the joint name, which were to mature on 07.03.1991. The husband of the Respondent unfortunately died in an accident on 26.11.1989. Before his death, the husband of the Respondent had taken an overdraft facility from the Petitioner Bank. After the death of her husband, the Respondent wrote a letter dated 23.12.1989 asking the Petitioner to adjust the deposits, which was taken as security for the overdraft facility. Accordingly, the Petitioner Bank adjusted the deposits and the remaining balance amount after such adjustment was credited in the Saving Bank Account of the Respondent. Vide letter dated 14.06.1993, the Respondent sought details of the deposits and transaction crediting in the overdraft account. This letter was replied by the Petitioner Bank vide reply dated 23.06.1993. The Petitioner Bank informed the Respondent that the details of the accounts of which she was seeking information had been destroyed and whatever information and documents were available were supplied to the Respondent along with this reply. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed the Complaint before the District Forum on 21.02.2008. The plea taken by the Petitioner was that the record was destroyed as it was 15 years old and that as per the Manual Instructions of the Bank, they were liable to furnish such information only upto eight years.

(3.) Parties led their evidence and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint and held as under: