:    J U D G M E N T    :

This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-

The complainant Subal Baidya along with Sudip and Sudipa Baidya (minors) are the consumers under Branch Manager, Bank of India, Chakdaha Branch.  The OPs are Branch Manager, Bank of India, Chakdaha Branch, Nadia and Sri Rabin Sarkar, S/o Late Panchanan Sarkar of Lalpur, Natun Pally, P.O. & P.S. Chakdaha, Dist. Nadia.  Sankari Baidya, W/o Subal Baidya died leaving Sudip and Sudipa Baidya (minor) children and husband Subal Bidya.  The bank account No. 23651 with Rs. 2,16,140/- are lying with in the Bank / OP. In spite of succession certificate taken from District delegate, Hooghly the bank is harassing the complainants by not giving the deposited money and thus the bank is also guilty of deficiency in service.  So the complainant filed this case praying for Rs. 216140/- along with up to date interest, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of the suit. 

The OP bank has contested the case by filing written statement.  The sum and substance of the written statements are as below:-

The complaint is harassing, misconceived and motivated and is barred by law of estoppels, waiver and acquisance.

The complainants have suppressed material facts and as such are not entitled to get relief claimed.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands.  The application is malafide.  The account in question was in the joint names of Sankari Sarkar and Panchanan Sarkar.  The death certificate of Panchanan Sarkar was not filed before the Bank.  Rabin Sarkar claimed as son of Panchanan Sarkar and requested the Bank not to disburse the amount.  The complainants suppressed material facts that Panchanan Sarkar had other two legal heirs.  The case is frivolous and it should be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

POINTS FOR DECISION

1. Point No. 1:   Are the complainants consumers?
2. Point No. 2:   Are the OP deficient in service?
3. Point No. 3:   What reliefs the complainants are entitled to get?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.   Before we discuss the issues or points we would like to list out the documents filed by the parties.

            The following documents are filed by the complainants:

1. Death Certificate of Sonkari Baidya from Victoria Hospital, Bangalore
2. Succession certificate of Sonkari Baidya
3. Court fee of Rs. 13,975.
4. Pass book of Subal Baiday
5. Pass book in the name of Sonkari Baidya and Panchanan Baidya
6. Letter of Subal Baiday to Branch Manager, BOI, Chakdaha
7. Letter from Gram Panchayat to Subal Baidya
8. Receipt of burning cost for death of Panchanan Sarkar
9. Letter of Subal Baiday to Branch Manager, BOI, Chakdaha
10. Affidavit of indemnity bond in the name of Subal Baiday
11. Letter of advocate to Branch Manager, BOI, Chakdaha
12. Receipt of A/D card of BOI, Chakdaha Branch.

The following document is also filed by the OP:

1. Letter of Rabin Sarkar dtd. 01.12.11 requesting the bank not to disburse the amount of account No. 23651.

There was amended plaint and an additional written version filed by the parties.  The amended petition was filed on 24.09.14 while the additional written version was filed on 19.11.2014.  We have meticulously gone through both the documents.  The main defence in the additional written version is that money could not be disbursed only to prevent fraud and avoid future complications particularly when Rabin Sarkar, OP No. 2, the son of Panchanan Sarkar filed a letter before the OP No. 1 Bank on 01.12.13 with a request to the bank not to disburse the amount claimed by the complainants. 

We have meticulously gone through the interrogatories and the replies thereto.  We have also assessed the affidavit evidence of the parties, affidavit evidence of Subal Baidya dtd. 19.03.14 went almost unchallenged.  The complainant Subal Baidya has established that he is the successor of Sankari Sarkar vide succession certificate filed by the complainant.  The district delegate signed the certificate on 25.02.10 which was amended and signed on 07.06.10.  Sankari Sarkar has been shown as daughter of Panchanan Sarkar, Lalpur, Tatun Pally, Chakdaha.  It is admitted position that the principle amount of Rs. 2,16,140/- was lying in the savings pass book account of Sankari Sarkar, who died on 07.07.07 and also in the name of Panchanan Sarkar who died on 31.07.02.  The pass book is in the mode of either or survivor. 

Subal Baidya opened an account in his name on the direction of the Bank authorities being Account No. 422110110004913 and customer I.D. 110093363.

We have nothing to disbelief that Act 39 case being No. 71 of 2007 wherein the right of Subal Baidya as successor who got the amount of Rs. 2,16,140/- lying with A/C No. 23651 in the Bank of India (OP) has been recognized. 

We have also gone through the letters filed by Subal Baidya showing submission of the said letters to the bank on 19.11.2010, 28.11.2010.  From the death certificate of Panchanan Sarkar it is clear that Panchanan Sarkar was burnt in the Ghat of Jhawchar, Dakshinpara on 31.07.02.  The indemnity bond was also given by Subal Baidya vide notarial certificate along with affidavits dtd. 22.03.11 and 22.11.10.  The lawyer’s letter dtd. 14.06.12 goes to show that the bank was informed about the legal proceedings against it. But the bank did not transfer the amount lying in account No. 23651 in the Bank of Nadia not it transferred on 02.06.10 along with interest in the account No. of Subal Baidya being No. 422110110004913.

Thus, we hold that the complainants are consumers of the bank / OP No. 1 and also hold that the bank OP No. 01 was guilty of deficiency in service. 

Thus, the complainants are entitled to get relief as disposed below:-

The bank shall transfer the amount of Rs. 2,16,140/- plus savings bank interest thereon from the date of deposit till the date of transfer. The said amount with intent shall be transferred to the account number of Subal Baidya being No. 422110110004913.  Hence, all the points are disposed of against the OP No. 1.

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2013/105 be and the same is allowed on contest.   The complainant do get a decree of Rs. 2,16,140/- plus interest thereon from the date of deposit till the date of realization. 

The OP No. 1, Branch Manager, Chakdaha Branch is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant, Subal Baidya and Rs. 1,000/- as cost imposed upon him.  The OP bank is directed to include the name of Sudip Baidya and Sudipa Baidya being the minors in the bank account of Subal Baidya being No. 422110110004913 in Bank of India.

If the bank fails to transfer the amount within one month to the account of complainant the decretal amount, it would bear the interest @ 7% per annum till the date of realization. 

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.