Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/991

BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALRAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH.O.P.SAMUDREY

08 Nov 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 991 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 02.05.2017 passed in C. C. No.947/2016 by District Commission, Bhopal)

 

1. BANK OF INDIA,

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER

    BRANCH T.T.NAGAR, BHOPAL.

 

2. BANK OF INDIA,

    THROUGH DEPUTY REGIONAL MANAGER,

    REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK OF INDIA BHAWAN,

    ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL.

 

3. BANK OF INDIA,

    THROUGH PRESIDENT & MANAGING DIRECTOR,

    HEAD OFFICE STAR HOUSE, C & G BLOCK,

    BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST)

    MUMBAI                                                                                                                    … APPELLANTS.

 

                Versus

 

BALRAM SINGH,

S/O LATE MUNNALAL,

BM-43, NEHRU NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P)                                                                     … RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY             :      PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK                  :     MEMBER

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri O. P. Samudrey, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Shrikant Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed on 08.11.2024)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                    This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants is directed against the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the ‘District

 

-2-

Commission’) in C. C. No. 947/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is allowed.

2.                Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that he after closing his bank account number 3443 ledger folio number 17/43 from the branch-Dhar Naka, Mhow, District-Indore he got transferred the deposited amount of Rs.20,081.35/- in the opposite party no.1-bank. It is alleged by the complainant that he repeatedly enquired about deposited amount from the opposite party no.1-bank, but the bank did not give him any details. Thereafter on 22.03.2016, 18.06.2016 and 13.08.2016 he made written request to the opposite parties but the opposite parties refused to give any information stating that the matter is old.  The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the bank filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking deposit of Rs.20,081/- along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/-.

3.                The opposite parties-bank remained ex-parte before the District Commission.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has erroneously dismissed the complaint not taking into consideration the fact that the complainant did not approach the

-3-

District Commission with clean hands as he did not disclose the correct facts of the matter and therefore he is not entitled to get any relief. He argued that the District Commission did not consider the fact that the disputed transaction was carried out on 02.12.1989 and the complainant has filed the present complaint on 06.12.2016 i.e. after 27-28 years whereas as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the limitation period to file the complaint is of 2 years. The complaint is thus not maintainable, being barred by limitation. He argued that the complainant did not even file any application under Section 24-A of the Act to condone the delay. He further argued that the appellant's branch Dhar Naka, Tehsil-Mhow, District-Indore is a necessary party but the complainant did not make the said branch as a party to the case. The complaint is thus also suffering from mis-joinder of parties and is therefore not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Also, the District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He also argued that the bank had already informed the complainant that no action could be taken since old record is not available with the bank.  He thus argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that despite getting the amount transferred in opposite party no.1-bank from

-4-

Dhar Naka Branch, Mhow, the opposite parties bank did not give any information about the amount so transferred despite repeated requests. The District Commission after considering the material available on record has rightly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the amount with interest and costs. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

7.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order and the record of the District Commission, we find that the complainant has submitted that he had closed his account no.3443 with the Bank of India-Dhar Naka Branch (C-6) on 02.12.1989. It is alleged by the complainant that after closing the account, the said branch of the bank has transferred the amount of Rs.20,081.35/- to the T.T. Nagar Branch, Bhopal of the opposite party-bank but the opposite party no.1-bank did not provide him any information with regard to said amount. To that effect he has filed photocopy of Advice dated 04.12.1989 of Dhar Naka Branch, Mhow (C-7).  However, on going through the same we find that there is no seal or signature of the concerned officer of the bank so that it can be ascertained that the said amount was transferred to the opposite party no.1-bank. Thus we find that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-bank.

 

-5-

8.                Also we find that the cause of action arose on either 02. 12.1989 or 04.12.1989 for which the complainant has filed the present complaint on 06.12.2016 i.e. almost after 27 years which is hopelessly barred by limitation. The complainant has also not moved any application for condonation of delay under Section 24A of the Act in filing the complaint.

9.                The complainant has also not impleaded the Bank of India, Dhar Naka, Branch Mhow who is a necessary party as a party to the case, thus the complaint is also suffering from misjoinder of parties and on this count also the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

10.              In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of a considered view that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint as the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.

11.              In the result, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

                (DR. SRIKANT PANDEY)                   (DR.MONIKA MALIK)

                    PRESIDING MEMBER                               MEMBER