Date of filing:- 22/03/2016
Date of Order:- 12/04/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 11 of 2016.
Aparna Tripathy, W/O-Sushanta Kumar Panigrahi, Aged about 49 years, R/O- Bargarh, Ward.No- 9, PO/PS/DIST-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Branch Manager ,Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.Mahila Branch Bargarh P.o/P.S/Dist-Bargarh.
Branch Manager,Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd Bank, Bijepur,Dist-Bargarh.
Secretary,Sambalpur district Co-operative Central Bank Ltd,Bargarh,P.O/P.S/Dist-Bargarh.
Sushanta Kumar Panigrahi S/O Late Natabara Panigrahi, At/P,o/P.S-Bijepur Dist- Bargarh. .... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Smt. M. Mishra with others, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri. R.K. Satpathy with others, Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.12/04/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Fact of the case :-
The fact of the case of the complainant in –nut-sell U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 solely against the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 with an allegation of deficiencies of service on their part committed in not disbursing some deposites made by her out of her hard earned money earned by doing life insurance policy agency Busssiness, with out assing any reason thereof at the time of such application for disbursement,and in her support has filed the details of deposites in different account with Opposite Parties banks respectively which are enunciated in the body of the order , praying therein for a direction before the forum to release such deposites in her favor with pendentilite interest and compensation for the deficiencies of service caused by those Opposite Parties. In Total to the tune of Rs15lacks.
Having gone through the complainant ,documents filed by her and hearing the advocate for her the forum was pleased to admit the case and summon was served on the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 initially and on being summoned the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written version denying their liability as claimed by the complainant with a sole ground that as the joint holder of all her claimed deposites had been objected for disbursement in his absence, in writing by her husband namely Sushanta kumar Panigrahi, subsequently there after the complainant made an application before the forum to add her husband the Opposite Party No.4 as a party and the forum was pleased to allow her such prayer and summoned him to appear and give his reply if any with him .
In his reply in the shape of version the Opposite Party No.4 categorically denied the pleas of the complainant that all the mentioned deposites made jointly with her were made out of her hard earned money earned from doing agency in the L.I.C. business rather those deposites are all made by him jointly with her as his wife while they were living jointly as husband and wife and also pertinently denied the liabilities of the Opposite party No.1 to 3 against her allegation of non rendering service to the tune of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 as he had made an objection in writing before the Opposite Parties not to disburse any amounts solely to the complainant since they have been separately living now and criminal case has been filed against him u/s 125crpc in the civil court which is still pending for disposal ,and also has categorically denied the need of the complainant for the education of her children as he him- self as the father of those children has made all arrangement by giving Rs.5,35,000/-(Rupees five lakh thirty five thousand) besides that she has been working as a regular teacher in a government school ,in addition to that she has already drawn an amount of Rs.1,62,454/-(Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand four hundred fifty four)only from out of the matured value of the two life insurance policies purchased by him, in her name which were matured in the year 1999.And hence prayed the forum to reject her claim of the entire amount and praying further to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to disburse the said amount to him basing upon the documents.
Having gone through the entire pleadings of both the parties ,documents filed on their behalf and written notes of arguments and hearing both the respective sides counsels it has has been admitted by all of them that the amounts as claimed by the complainant and the Opposite Party No.4 enumerated below is due on the Opposite Party No.1 and 2.
Rs.320,614/-,Rs,265,041,Rs.213,743,&Rs.256,491, in total Rs.10,55,889/(Rupees ten lakh fifty five thousand eight hundred eighty nine)only as matured value vide A/C No-9161,9162,9163,9174,respectively And another amount of Rs. 235,117/- in a F.D. No. 3466 accumulating to a total amount of Rs.12,91,006/-(Rupees twelve lakh ninety one thousand six rupees)only.
Now on perusal of records some of the points have cropped up before us for adjudication as follows.
Whether the opposite parties no.-1 to 3 are deficient in giving service to the complainant .
Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as she claimed .
Whether the forum under the Consumer Protection Act-1986 has got jurisdiction to adjudicate for the entitlement of the claimed amount.
While considering the points no.1 for determination while going through the entire pleadings of the parties and their documents it came to our notice that though the complainant has claimed the amounts before the Opposite Parties with the endorsement of her husband in the documents but she has tried to suppress the materials facts before the Opposite Parties and before the Forum as well that at the time of such claim she has been staying alone being separated from her husband ,,the Opposite party No.4 and also a criminal proceeding is pending in between them , secondly she has not denied the plea of the Opposite party No.4 her that she has been working as teacher in as much as she is in paucity of funds is a false one, at any points of time ,so also she has not filed any documents to the effects of accumulation of such a sum to deposite from out of her own income as L.I.C. Agent. On the other hand the version of the Opposite party No.4 clearly reveals that he has claimed to the whole sum of the said deposites jointly from out of his own income at the time when they were living jointly as husband and wife and also his categorical assertion of his endorsement in the documents were given for adjustment of the same funds in the loan account after it’s withdrawal, which has not been disputed by the complainant at any points of time ,further more the claim of the complainant for the disbursement of the said funds in her favor on the basis of E.S according to the postal norm does not apply here in this type of cases where such materials facts are concealed and more pertinently when the co-holder of the accounts is alive and has a dispute over the same ,in that case it can not be held that the deficiencies of rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3. In view of such circumstances our views goes in favor of the Opposite Party No.1 to 3.
Secondly while dealing with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts as per her claim , in answering the points for determination we have already expressed our views that the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are are not deficient in any manner in rendering proper service to her ,now the question for her entitlement to the said funds depends upon her understanding with the Opposite Party No.4 as he being the joint holder of the accounts and our views expressed in the foregoing paragraph,as it has been claimed by him that the amount deposited by him in their joint name during the subsistence of their marital life, as such our views goes against the claim of the complainant.
Thirdly present materials available before the forum reveals that a criminal case is pending in between both the complainant and the Opposite Party No.4, we can not interfere with the matter because it is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 further more since it has now become a case for adjudication regarding the declaration of the right over the amount, as such as we have already expressed our view on the point of our jurisdiction and the same applies to both the parties as against their claim and for proper adjudication of the matter an elaborate evidences both oral & documentary are required to be examined in relation to different laws involves therein as such since it is not possible in a summary trial envisages in the Act, in this context they are at liberty to knock the door of the proper Forum of law for determination of the entitlement of the such sum of money,hence order follows .
O R D E R
In the result the case of the complainant against the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and 4 is hereby dismissed and against the Opposite Party No.4 as against his prayer for release the same amount in his favor as it is beyond our jurisdiction, in view of the fact that it needs an elaborate examination of both documentary and oral evidence as such the complainant is at liberty to approach before the proper forum of law to ascertain her right over the amount claimed by her,
At the same time the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are directed to keep the amount as aforesaid with them in the same status till the final decision of the entitlement of the same amount by the competent forum .
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
` Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r (W)
