Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/305

Kamaljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Sandhu Adv.

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 305 of 26.04.2016

Date of Decision          :   08.03.2017

              

Kamaljit Kaur widow of Gurmeet Singh s/o Balbir Singh, resident of Kot Gangu Rai, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, now residing at House of Amar Singh, r/o Malhpur, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr.

….. Complainant

Versus

Bank of Baroda, VPO Sh.Bhaini Sahib, District Ludhiana, through its Manager.

 

…Opposite party

 

    (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:                                                         

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate.

For Op                           :         Sh.Pardeep Arora, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Gurmeet Singh, husband of complainant opened saving bank account No.21190100007479 with OP by depositing Rs.2,83,883/- on various dates. Complainant was mentioned as nominee by said Gurmeet Singh, who expired on 07.03.2013. Complainant being nominee and wife of deceased is entitled to withdraw the amount, but OP without any authority, refused for withdrawal of the amount. It is claimed that the complainant has no child out of this marriage. Land inherited from Sh.Gurmeet Singh had already been sold to pay the loan to Indian Overseas Bank, village and post Katani Kalan, District Ludhiana. Complainant rendered services to Gurmeet Singh. Despite numerous visits by the complainant to OP, withdrawal not permitted and as such, by pleading deficiency in service, directions sought against OP to disburse the deposited amount with interest. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1 lac even claimed.

2.                       In written statement filed by OP, it is claimed that the complaint is not legally maintainable because there is concealment of material facts; complainant has no cause of action; complaint bad due to non joinder of Smt.Tej Kaur, who is one of the legal heirs of deceased Sh.Gurmeet Singh. Besides, it is claimed that Gurmeet Singh, first husband of the complainant expired on 7.3.2013 and he left behind the complainant and his mother Smt. Tej Kaur as his legal heirs. Smt. Tej Kaur, the mother of deceased, applied to the bank for release of her ½ share out of amount of Rs.2,83,883/-, which was lying in the above mentioned account of Gurmeet Singh. Even a civil suit was filed by Smt.Tej Kaur against the complainant as well as against OP and that suit alleged to be pending for adjudication. Copy of plaint of that suit has been filed with the written statement. OP claims that it has no objection in releasing of the entire amount in favour of the complainant, if Smt. Tej Kaur, one of the legal heirs of Gurmeet Kaur does not object for the same. Rather, said Tej Kaur filed an application for not releasing the entire amount of Rs.2,83,883/- to the complainant and that is why, OP rendered in capable to release the amount in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying that no harassment caused to the complainant.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and thereafter, complainant along with her counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Bhinder Singh, Special Assistant Branch Manager of OP along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of parties, but oral arguments alone advanced. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                There is no dispute regarding the fact that amount of Rs.2,83,883/- lying deposited with OP bank in the name of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, whose death took place on 7.3.2013. Copy of death certificate produced on record as Ex.C1 and that of    statement of account produced as Ex.C4 and of nomination form produced as Ex.C5. Certainly, in the Nomination form Ex.C5, it is mentioned that Smt. Kamaljit Kaur(complainant) is nominee of said Gurmeet Singh. In view of complainant being nominated as nominee by Gurmeet Singh deceased, she is legally entitled for release  of the entire amount in question is the contention of counsel for the complainant. That amount has not been disbursed despite numerous visits and issue of registered notice Ex.C2 through postal receipt Ex.C3 and as such, it is vehemently contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Even if these submissions looks ex-facie correct, but in fact they have no force because the complainant has suppressed the material facts regarding institution of civil suit by Smt.Tej Kaur(mother of deceased Sh.Gurmeet Singh) against the complainant and OP as well as one Baljinder Singh. Through that civil suit, Smt.Tej Kaur sought recovery of Rs.1,41,941/-, being ½ share in the deposited amount of Rs.2,83,883/- as revealed by copy of plaint Ex.R1. That civil suit still pending as per contents of affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Bhinder Singh, Special Assistant Branch Manager of OP. Same facts also pleaded in the written statement filed by OP and as such, it is obvious that the complaint has been filed by suppressing the material facts qua pendency of civil suit qua the same subject matter. As and when there is concealment of material facts, then complainant on equitable consideration not entitled to equitable relief. Through plaint Ex.R1, it is claimed by Smt.Tej Kaur, as if she being the mother of deceased entitled to have ½ share in the amount deposited in the name of deceased. Further, in this plaint, it is mentioned that after death of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, marriage of complainant performed as per Chaderandazi ceremony with Sh. Balbir Singh, the brother of the deceased, Sh. Gurmeet Singh. Bank has no objection in releasing of the amount in favour of person entitled thereto, but so long as the civil suit is pending, OP bank is bound to wait for the orders of the Court, particularly when as per agreement Ex.R4 arrived at by the complainant, complainant herself undertook to abide by the orders of Civil Court regarding deposited amount with OP bank. That agreement of date 19.10.2015 Ex.R4 has been produced by the OP and as such, it is obvious that the complainant has not only suppressed the material facts regarding pendency of civil suit, but even she has suppressed the facts regarding arrival of an agreement Ex.R4 duly signed by her. In view of this agreement Ex.R4 being in notice of OP, both the complainant and OP bound to wait for the orders of Civil Court in pending civil suit referred above. If that be the position, then non release of the amount despite service of legal notice does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of OP at all.

7.                As per law laid down in case Oswal Fine Arts vs. H.M.T.-1991(1)CPJ-330(N.C.), when the matter is subjudice before the ordinary Civil Courts of the land, then Consumer Commission cannot and will not entertain any claim for compensation in respect of the same subject matter. After going through copy of plaint Ex.R1 of Civil Suit, it is made out that Smt. Tej Kaur claimed as if Kamaljit Kaur in connivance with OP and Baljinder Singh has got withdrawn the amount from the bank account of Gurmeet Singh and the amount released without obtaining succession certificate and as such, Tej Kaur entitled to ½ share in this deposited amount of Rs.2,83,883/-, being class I legal heir. So, virtually controversy raised in the pending civil suit is qua the same subject matter qua which this complaint filed because question of disbursal of the amount in question to complainant as nominee is directly and substantially is the question with regard to the entitlement of Smt.Tej Kaur to have ½ share in the amount in question.

8.                Though, OP has specifically stated in the written statement as well as in affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Bhinder Singh, Special Assistant Branch Manager that civil suit referred above is still pending for adjudication, but the complainant has not mentioned any fact regarding the pendency of that civil suit. This is despite the fact that written statement by OP bank has already been filed in the pending civil suit before Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana. Copy of that written statement is produced on record as Ex.R2. So, virtually this complaint has been filed by suppressing the material facts not only regarding arrival of compromise Ex.R4, but even regarding the pendency of civil suit. That shows that this complaint has been filed virtually just for abusing the process of law. In case, fact of pendency of suit before Civil Court  suppressed in proceedings before Consumer Fora, then same to be taken as gross abuse of Consumer Protection Act is the preposition of law laid down in case S.James Vincent vs. Greater Cochin Development Authority-1994(1)CPJ-174(N.C). The same is the position in the case before us and as such, virtually this complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law, particularly when parallel proceedings in the Civil Court and Consumer Fora qua the same subject matter cannot be permitted to be continued even as per law laid down in case U.P.Somashekar vs. The Secretary APMC Yard-III(1999)CPJ-134 as well as in case Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Jai Dev Aggarwal-1999(1)MCLT-111(Haryana). So, looking from any angle, this complaint merits dismissal.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Param Jit Singh Bewli)            (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                                               President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:08.03.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.