DATE OF FILING : 27/05/2014
DATE OF S/R : 30/06/2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31/12/2015
1. DHARM RAJ MAHATO
S/O lt. Bhagu Ram Mahato,
68, Kulipara, Makhla, P.O. Makhla
P.S. Uttarpara
Hooghly 712 245.
2. Smt. Deoraji Debi Mahato,
w/o. late Bhagu Ram Mahato,
68, Kulipara, Makhla, P.O. Makhla, P.S. Uttarpara,
District Hooghly,
PIN 712245.
both are presently 64/1, Pandey Road, Sreema Pally,
P.O. Makhla, P.S. Uttarpara,
District Hooghly………………….………………………… COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
1. Bank of India
Liluah (West) Branch at 3 No. Rabindra Sarani
(near Liluah Rly. Station)
P.O. & P.S. Liluah
Howrah 711204.
2. Chief Manager / Branch Manager,
Bank of India,
Liluah (West) Branch
near Liluah Railway Station,
3, Rabindra Sarani,
Howrah 711 204 ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainants, Shri Dharm Raj Mahato and Smt. Deoraji Debi Mahato, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) have prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay the existing balance amount lying in the DBD account of the deceased account holder, namely Bhagu Ram Mahato, to the complainant, along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that the complainants are the legal heirs of one, Bhagu Ram Mahato, since deceased, being the only son and wife. The said Bhaguram Mahato, since deceased, maintained different accounts with O.P. Bank being a) S/B A/C with No. as 402310100008380, b) Double Benefit Deposit A/C No. 402343710000166 c) Loan A/C no. 40236111000226. After the death of said Bhagu Ram Mahato on 01/05/2012 vide Annexure, complainants repeatedly requested O.P. to refund all amount lying in those accounts maintained by late Bhaguram Mahato with them. But O.P. did not care to take any fruitful step. And due to severe financial hardship, the treatment required for complainant no. 2 for her cardiac problem, could not be continued. Although O.P. was even informed about all these through lawyer’s letter dt. 02/01/2013, O.P. neither provided any information relating to the remaining balance of those A/Cs. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served upon O.Ps. They appeared and filed W/V. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- We have carefully gone through the W/V filed by O.P. and noted their contents. Denying and disputing all allegations of the complainants, O.Ps. have categorically stated that after receiving their lawyer’s letter dt. 02/01/2013, O.Ps. sent one reply dt. 09/01/2013 vide annexure asking them to submit legal heirship certificate from D.M. / Deputy Collector which they could not submit till date. So, beyond their official rules and regulations, they could not give any service to the complainants. In the para nos. 20, 21, 22, O.Ps. have provided details of all the accounts held by Bhagu Ram Mahato, since deceased. On perusal of the record, we find the copy legal heirship certificate dt. 21/08/2012 of the complainants duly provided the local Councilor, Complainants also filed one Affidavit to that effect. O.Ps., being the custodian of public money, was required to be very very careful in such kind of financial matter. It is also admitted by the complainants that late Bhagu Ram Mathato took a total loan of Rs.50,000/- from O.Ps. which was not repaid by him. Accordingly, we think in absence of any legal heirship certificate, provided by D.M. or Deputy Collector, o.ps. were not in a position to provide any service to the complainants. However, in this case complainants have filed an Affidavit swearing therein that they are the only legal heirs of late Bhaguram Mahato. And they have also submitted voter’s I.D. Card wherefrom it is clear that the complainants are the son and wife respectively of late Bhaguram Mahato.
In view of above discussion, the prayer of the complainants is allowed in part
without any cost or compensation.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 304 of 2014 ( HDF 304 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest in part with cost but without compensation.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to furnish all possible information to the complainants with respect to the accounts held by late Bhagu Ram Mahato and adjust the accounts accordingly with the credit of accrued interest, if any, within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged upon the o.ps. till actual work done.
No order as to compensation.
That they are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., @ 8% p.a. interest shall be charged.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
