Haryana

Ambala

CC/82/2021

Jagat Pal Dhamija - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Singh

03 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :     82 of 2021

                                                          Date of Institution           :     12.02.2021

                                                          Date of decision    :     03.10.2022.

 Jagat Pal Dhamija, aged about 69 Yrs son of Late Sh. Kartar Chand, R/o 2580/28 Dhamija Niwas, Behind S.D.Public School, Ambala Cantt. now at present residing at Plot No.6, Preet Nagar Society near Sneha Apartment, Chandan Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra)

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Nicholoson Road, Ambala Cantt.
2. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Central Bank of India, P.B.No.13, SCO No.58-59 Bank Square, Sec.17-B Chandigarh.
3. The Chairman, Central Bank of India, Corporate Office, Chandermukhi Nariman Point Mumbai-400021.   

                                                                             ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Shri R.K.Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of direction to them.

                   i) To credit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- of the FDR bearing  no.ABC/FD- 14627 alongwith interest from 17.12.1993 till                          realization, in the newly opened account.

ii) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.  

iii) To pay Rs.51,000/ as litigation expenses.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is legal heir of Smt. Krishna Devi wife of Late Sh.Kartar Chand Dhamija, who expired on 17.12.1993. The mother of the complainant-Smt. Krishna Devi was maintaining her saving account no.17109 in the bank of O.P.No.1 and she was also holder of a FDR bearing no.ABC/FD-14627 of Rs.20,000/- in the same bank. After the death of Smt. Krishna Devi, the complainant being her legal heir moved an application on 16.8.2003 for renewal of FDR mentioned above and completed all the required formalities as desired by O.P.No.1. The complainant alongwith the above said application submitted the following documents i.e. Claim form, letter of indemnity, declaration of oath, copy of death certificate, copy of NOC of other legal heirs, Original FDR and Original Passbook to the O.P.No.1, which was duly received by the O.P.No.1 on 20.8.2003. The O.P.No.1 gave endorsement "received documents and will be sent to Pune for verification of legal heirs". Since then the complainant is waiting for the verification letter from the OPs but till date no letter for verification of legal heirs was received by him. Due to old aged diseases the complainant was not able to visit the branch of OPs and on 20.12.2019, the complainant again moved an application to the Regional/Zonal Office at Chandigarh i.e. O.P.No.2, but till date no reply of the said letter was given by OPs. In the month of October and November, 2019 the complainant visited the office of O.P.No.1 and met the Senior Manager, who told the complainant that there is no record available in the Branch and that the Ops did not maintain the record after 10 years and flatly refused to give the original FDR and original Pass Book of the mother of the complainant. When his grievance was not redressed despite making lot of efforts, the complainant served a legal notice dated 27.2.2020 upon the OPs. The O.P.No.1 gave reply to the legal notice of the complainant on 19.5.2020 and declined the claim of the complainant and thereafter the complainant again wrote a letter dated 26.6.2020 but to no avail. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties, barred by limitation, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the FDR details were incomplete so the OPs were unable to trace the same. Application dated 16.08.2003 was received by the OPs from the complainant at Ambala Cantt. Branch. However the contents of the application itself speak that the application was incomplete. The complainant is himself under fault and has not taken care of things and has now approached this Commission after the period of 16 years. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Santosh Kumar, Branch Manager Central Bank of India, Branch Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.
6.           The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after the death of the mother of the complainant Smt. Krishna Devi, he being the legal heir had moved an application on 16.08.2003 for renewal of the FDR and also submitted all the requisite documents with the OP No.1, it give endorsement "received documents and will be sent to Pune for verification of legal heirs", but it did nothing. Complainant again moved an application on 20.10.2019, to the OP No.2, but nothing was done by it. The said act of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in providing services. 
7.           The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the present complaint is not only liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation but on merits also. He further submitted that the complainant did not provide the complete detail of the FDR as a result whereof OPs unable to trace the same. The alleged letter dated 16.8.2003, was not received by the OPs. It is prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.
8.           It may be stated here that admittedly, the present dispute has been raised by the complainant, in respect of the FDR of Rs.20,000/-, for which he moved an application alongwith necessary documents to the OPs on 16.08.2003 for renewal thereof, which stood acknowledged by the OPs vide letter dated 23.08.2003, Annexure C-3. It is coming out from the record that thereafter, the complainant maintained silence for more than 16 years for the reasons best known to him and thereafter moved an application (Annexure C-4) in the matter only on 20.12.2019. The complainant has miserably failed to convince this Commission, as to why, there was such a huge delay of more than 16 years in following up the matter with the OPs regarding the fate of the said FDR.  Thus, under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that filing of this complaint on 12.02.2021 i.e. after moving the application dated 16.08.2003 to the OPs regarding the said FDR, is hopelessly time barred.
9.           In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it has been held above that this complaint is barred by limitation, as such, in our considered opinion, even then if we proceed further on merits of this case, it would be nothing but commission of an illegality on the part of this Commission. Our this view is supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank Of India vs M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2067 of 2002, decided 20 March, 2009,    wherein it was held as under:-          
   • If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside……”

 

10.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed being barred by limitation, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 03.10.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President