Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Kamal Kumar Sajnani Vs. Branch Manager, Bank Of Baroda
Case No.: F.A.No. 234/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, addressed a case involving fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) and the responsibilities of banks in joint accounts. The core issue was whether the bank provided adequate service by not notifying a joint account holder before releasing funds.
Case Background:
The complainant, Mr. Kamal Kumar Sajnani, invested in fixed deposit schemes at the Bank of Baroda, accumulating maturity amounts of Rs. 13,93,859, Rs. 8,71,649, and Rs. 4,10,066. These funds were from his own resources, though he opened the accounts jointly with his wife due to residing in Spain. Following a deterioration in their relationship and a criminal complaint filed by his wife, he feared she might withdraw the funds. He asked the bank to change the account operation instructions to require both signatures for withdrawals. Despite his requests, the bank released the deposits to his wife. Mr. Sajnani filed a complaint with the Rajasthan State Commission, seeking compensation of Rs. 33,30,574 with 24% interest for mental distress. The State Commission ruled partially in his favor, awarding him Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony and harassment. Unsatisfied, Mr. Sajnani took his case to the National Commission.
Bank’s Argument:
The bank claimed it informed Mr. Sajnani that changes to the account’s operation required signatures from both account holders. It stated that without a written request from all signatories, no changes could be made. The bank argued that payments were made via banker’s cheques as per the instructions on the FDRs, adhering to the “Either or Survivor” clause, which it believed justified its actions.
National Commission’s Findings:
The commission noted that the FDRs were opened with ‘either or survivor’ instructions. It was clear that Mr. Sajnani had informed the bank not to release the FDRs to his wife and sought a change in operational instructions to require both signatures. The bank had acknowledged these requests, confirming the instructions would be updated. The commission determined that once Mr. Sajnani requested restrictions on unilateral withdrawals, the bank was responsible for notifying the other joint holder of any intent to release the FDRs. The bank’s failure to do so was deemed a deficiency in service. Additionally, the commission agreed with the State Commission that issues regarding ownership of the funds fell outside the consumer forum’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the commission upheld the State Commission’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Takeaway:
This judgment underscores the importance of banks adhering to requests for joint account operation changes and ensuring both parties are informed before any unilateral actions are taken.
