BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad B.A., LL.B., President

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B. Com., LL.B., Member

Monday the 7^th day of August, 2006

CC. No. 02/2006

Shaikhoon Bee,

W/o. Late Abu Bakar Abbas,

R/o. H.No. 15-178,

Khadakpura, Kurnool.                                       . . . Complainant

-Vs-

1.   The Branch Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank, Kadapa.

2.   The Branch Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank, Kurnool.          . . . Opposite parties

This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri.Challa.Sudhakar Reddy Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri K.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No.1 and 2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.

O R D E R

1. This case of the Complainant is filed U/s 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking direction on Opposite Party to furnish the amount with interest standing in the savings bank account of late Fathima Bee in 1^st Opposite Parties Bank – as she is the said account holder’s surviving daughter-in-law being the widow her deceased son Abu Baker Abbas and pay her Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony occurred at the deficient conduct of the Opposite Parties in not furnishing the required information of late Fathima Bee’s account, for being used in succession certificate proceedings lodged in the Principal District Judge Court, Kurnool and Rs 1,00,000/- at deficient conduct of the Opposite Parties.

2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that she is the wife of late Abu Bakar Abbas S/o late Fathima Bee who is holding an S.B. Account No. 873 in the bank of Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant being the sole surviving legal heir of deceased account holder, and has lodged an original petition in Principal Dist. Court, Kurnool seeking issual of succession certificate and in that regard she sought vide her letter dated 23-08-2005 and legal notice dated 01-11-2005 , a certificate of the Opposite Party No.1 as to the details of the amount standing to the credit of said account holder to claim the said asset as the successor of said account holder. The Opposite Parties non response to her requests as amounting to deficiency of service, constrained her to file this case for reliefs stated earlier on the Opposite Party No.1 and against Opposite Party No.2 as local branch office at Kurnool.

3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notices issued by this Forum as to the case of the Complainant the Opposite Parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case by filing their written version denying any of their liability to the relief claimed by the Complainant as Mumbai High Court has issued a succession certificate in favour of one Mumthaz as widow of Abu Bakar Abbas and the same was informed to the Complainant on 15-12-2005 seeking certain clarification from the Complainant as to her status as member of said family and as to why she did not contest the proceeding of succession certification Mumbai High Court while the later has granted succession certificate in favour of Mumthaz as sole and surveying the successor of said account holder and also questioning the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the case against them for want of any consumer disputes between them and the Complainant and also the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and thereby seeking dismissal of the complaint with exemplory costs of Rs 1,00,000/- in their favour.

4. In substantiation of the contention while the Complainant’s side has relied up on the document record in Ex. A1 to A5 and Complainant’s Sworn Affidavit in reiteration of its case and interrogatories and replies exchanged, the Opposite Parties have taken reliance on documentary record in Ex. B1 to B7 and sworn Affidavit of the Opposite Party No.1 in reiteration of its defence and the interrogatories and replies exchanged.

5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the Complainant has made out any deficiency of service and deficient conduct of the Opposite Parties making them liable to the reliefs sought?:.

6. From the pleading of the Opposite Parties side, it appears that there is no dispute as to the status of deceased Fathima Bee as holding S.B. Account with Opposite Party No.1’s Bank and the dispute appears to be only as to the entitleness of the Complainant to have the required particulars of S.B. Account of said Fathima Bee as one Mummthaz as wife of Abu Bakar Abbas has got a succession certificate in her favour and thereby the privy of Complainant to the matters remained questionable. The reply of Opposite Party No.1 to the interrogatory No.2 of the Complainant makes it clear as to the correct S.B. Account Number of Late Fathima Bee as 50873 and not as mere 873 and the Opposite Party No.1 addressed a letter 15-12-2003 (Ex.B7) requiring certain compliance’s by the Complainant and in answer to interrogatory No. 3, the Opposite Party No.1 makes it further clear, in reiteration of its written version averments, that the Complainant did not clarify the things sought from here in this regard. But the perusal of Ex.B2 - Xerox of Account opening form of Fathima Bee shows her S.B. Account Number as 873 and the contention of Opposite Party No.1 that her account number as 50873 is being envisaged in the Xerox of ledger extract of Fathima Bee furnished by the Opposite Party No.1 into case record and it is showing out standing balance as on August,2006 as Rs 1,36,931/- and Xerox of ledger extract furnish by the Opposite Party No.1 to the case record shows the account number 873 is on the name of A. Aruna showing to its balance Rs 598.50Ps. as on 24^th March, 2006 the correct account number of said late Fathima Bee remains to be 50873. While such is so the counter filed by the Opposite Party in I.A. No. 157/06 admits that the S.B. Account Number of Fathima Bee was wrongly mentioned by it in its pleadings as 673 and so it is to be ignored having any relevancy to this case. Hence, from the above there appears a communication gap in between the parties to the case proceedings as to be existing S.B. Account number of Fathima Bee and what ever happened earlier to filing of this case, the purpose of Complainant appears to have served in seeking the particulars of the balance at the credit of late Fathima Bee’s account in Opposite Party No.1’s Bank, by this Xerox of ledger of S.B. Account number 50873 furnished by Opposite Party No.1 into case record and as it was a document injected into case record admitting it as it stands, the Complainant can take its advantage as an admission of Opposite Party No.1 as to the particulars required by the Complainant and can make its use in appropriate proceedings subject to its legal permissibility.

7. However, even though the Complainant is said to have not clarified the quires raised by the Opposite Party No.1 in Ex.B7 letter, as the Opposite Party No.1 is not authority to issue any succession certificate to any body but only to comply the legal orders issued by competent authority, and so in pursuance of any request for furnishing necessary particulars for filing in proceedings for succession certificate, nothing would have prevented, none the less the order of succession certificate issued by Mumbai High Court in favoru of one Mummtaz, from furnishing the particulars of amount standing to the account of Fathima Bee informing therein the issual of succession certificate by Mumbai High Court in favour of one Mummthaz and thereby leaving their appreciation by the Court where any proceeding for issual of secessions certificate as sought by the Complainant may be pending.

8. It may be true that the Banks must maintain secrecy of account of account holder from being misused by others. By this it doesn’t mean that the Bank could refuse to furnish any particulars under that pretext even when an account holder dies and the benefit of said account survives on to her account holder successor recognised by law under relevant legal proceedings and that to when such surveying successor needs and seeks it for being considered in the proceedings initiated in competent court for obtaining a successor certificate in its favour for the left over interests of the deceased account holder. Even if there is any communication gap in between the parties as to the correct existing S.B. Account number of said late Fathima Bee, when the request of the Complainant not merle takes reference to the account number but also to the name of the said account holder and here relation to the later, and when the correct existing account number could be traceable by the Opposite Party No. 1 from its records in reference to the name of said account holder, there appears no justifiable excuse on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 in not furnishing the required particulars to the Complainant and thereby said conduct certain amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, especially when the purpose of the Complainant in her request is made clear to Opposite Parties in Ex.A1,A3 and A5 which are acknowledged under Ex. A2 and A4.

9. Even though there appears a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 towards the Complainant in not providing the particulars to her to make its use in proceeding for succession certificate, the competency of this Forum for ordering any such reliefs sought by the Complainant depends upon the jurisdiction of this Forum as questioned by the Opposite Parties, to entertain the said complaint of deficiency of service alleged by the Complainant against Opposite Party No.1 and so it is remaining obligatory on the part of this Forum to give a finding on the said aspect to asses the entitle ness of the Complainant to the reliefs sought.

10. Firstly the Opposite Party No.1 questions the status of the consumer to the Complainant and secondly the status of consumer dispute to the case of the Complainant and territorial jurisdiction of this Consumer forum, alleging that the S.B. Account of Late Fathima Bee is in Kadapa which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum, Kurnool and Sec. 11 C.P. Act contemplates of the filing of the case in the Forum wherein the Opposite Party resides and not where the Complainant opts and there being no consumer relation to the Complainant with the Opposite Party No.1 being the Complainant is not the account holder having any privy as account holder to the Opposite Party No.1 Bank.

11. As the definition of "Consumer" U/s 2 D of C.P. Act includes in its fold the beneficiary of consumer – the Complainant as surviving successor of late Fathima Bee intends the required particulars of said Fathima Bee’s accounts as its surviving beneficiary to make use of it in the proceedings for secession certificate lodged in competent court to have secession certificate in her favour, there appears no much merit and force in the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 questioning the status of Consumer to the Complainant.

12. Now as to the other aspects raised as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the claim of the Complainant is concerned.

13. Section 11 (2) (a&b) of C.P. Act enables the institution of a Complainant in a District Forum with in the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Opposite Party or each of the Opposite Party, where there are more than one at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain provided in such case permission of the District Forum is given or the Opposite Party who don’t reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain as the case may be acquiesce in such institution.

1. In this case the cause of action of deficiency of service is alleged against Opposite Party No.1. who is having his Bank office at Kadapa, and no cause of action against Opposite Party No.2 is alleged except its being a branch office of Indian Oversees Bank at Kurnool. The branch office contemplated for having jurisdiction must be the branch office of the Opposite Party who resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum where the Complainant is instituted. Hence the mere existance of branch office of said bank and not of Opposite Party No.1 at Kurnool does not satisfy the legal requirement to confer jurisdiction. Further its mere status of branch office also dos not suffice the legal requirement of Sec.11 (2) of CP Act as by its proviso warrants either the permission of the District Forum, where the complaint is instituted if the Opposite Party against whom cause of action alleged for such institution is beyond the territorial limits or at the acquiescence of said Opposite Party who is put up beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum where the Complainant is instituted. There is any order of this Forum permitting the Complainant for such institution of this complaint neither there is any acquiescent not of the said Opposite Party No.1 is express or implied in this case as the Opposite Parties contend and question on the territorial jurisdiction of this forum on said point very much.

15. From the perusal of the material of the record on Complainant side, the Complainant has acquired any cause of action at Kurnool as nothing was done at Kurnool except causing notices to the Opposite Parties, which does not amount to consider it as any part of cause of action.

16. Therefore in the present case none of the legal requirements to create jurisdiction for institution of the Complainant case in this Forum being complied by the Complainant and so the institution of the Complaint by the Complainant in the District Forum, Kurnool suffers for want of compliance of legal requirement contemplated Sec. 11(2) (a&b) and therefore the case of the Complainant fails as this Forum ceases of its competency to pass any reliefs the Complainant entitled, for want of territorial jurisdiction to it to entertain the Complainant case.

17. Consequently, the case of the Complainant is dismissed with its costs and ordering the Complainant for the payment of Rs 10,000/- as exemplory costs to each of the Opposite Parties for dragging them to the case proceedings to the Forum having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain Complainant’s grievances validly.

MEMBER                            PRESIDENT                    MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant: Nil                  For the opposite parties: Nil

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-

1. Office copy of letter, dt 23.8.05 of complainant to opposite party No.1.
2. Acknowledgement by opposite party No.1 at Ex A.2.
3. Legal notice, dt 1.10.2005 of complainant counsel to opposite party No.1
4. Postal Acknowledgment by opposite party No.1 dt 4.10.2005.
5. Xerox copy of letter, dt 17.7.2005 of complainant counsel to opposite party No.1.

List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex B.1 Account opening Form of Fathima Bee, dt 15.12.94.

Ex B.2 Account opening Form for SB A/c No. 637 of opposite party No.1

Dt2.12.93.

Ex B.3 Ledger of SB account No. 637 in the name of Y. Chandra sekhar

Reddy at page No. 75.

Ex B.4 Ledger of SB A/c No. 873 of Op No.1 stating in the name of

Fathima Bee.

Ex B.5 Legal notice, dt 17.7.2005 addressed by complainant counsel to

Opposite party No.1 (Ex A.5).

Ex B.6 Legal notice, dt 1.10.2005 addressed by complainant to Op No.1

(Ex A.3).

Ex B.7 Office copy of letter dt 15.12.2005 addressed by Op No.1 to the

Complainant counsel.

MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT                   MEMBER

Copy to:-

1. Sri Challa. Sudhakar Reddy Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri K. Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties :