Order No. 17 Dt. 20.07.2017
This complaint U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 has been filed by the petitioner, Md. Keyamat Sebji & Others mentioned in their complaint that their mother had a savings bank account bearing No. 5372010000569 Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Mothabari Branch, Malda who died on 18.01.2013 leaving the complainants and O.P. No.3 Niyamat Sebji as heirs after the demise of Ajiman Bibi. The said Niyamat Sebji by false personation has withdrawn Rs.50000/- on 09.06.2015 from the said account. The complainants then submitted written allegation before the Bank Branch on 17.10.2015 about the fraudulent transaction of the said account dt. 09.06.2015. and asked the bank to take proper action against the wrong doer and to deposit the said Rs.50000/- in the said account and disburse the entire money of the said account amongst the heirs of Ajiman Bibi. The Bank did not take any steps, so the prayer for compensation.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 has contested the case by filing written version and stated that the subject matter of this case does not come within the purview of C.P. Act, 1986 and fraudulent withdrawal of the savings account involved complex questions to be determined by securing elaborate evidence and the Consumer Forum has got no jurisdiction to collect elaborate evidence about the alleged fraudulent transaction and it should be decided by any competent Civil Court.
Points for decision:
- Are the complainants ‘Consumer’ as per Provision of C.P. Act, 1986?
- Does the complaint of this case comes within the purview of Sec. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- To what relieves the complainant entitled thereto?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and discussion.
Admittedly, one Ajiman Bibi was the account holder who has expired on 18.01.2013. Unless final settlement of the said account on account of death of the depositor the complainants as heirs of the deceased account holder are not directly the customers of the O.P. Bank. So the complainant should not be treated as ‘Consumers’ under the C.P. Act, 1986. The O.P. side cited a reported decision of Delhi S.C.D.R.C reported in 1(2013)CPJ 276 fraudulent withdrawal from account complicated and complex questions involved elaborate evidence required and as such dispute not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.
Here in this case, a lump sum amount (Rs.50000/-) has already withdrawn in a deceptive and fraudulent manner after the demise of the sole account holder which has not been denied by the O.P. Bank. The Bank says that Forum cannot do anything against this fraudulent withdrawal. We agree with the argument of the bank as because neither the complainants are to be treated here as ‘Consumer’ nor the complaint comes within the purview of Sec. 12 of this Act.
On the contrary, the O.P. Bank also cannot absolve itself from the liability against the fraudulent transaction which was duly informed to them by the complainants on 19.10. 2015. Certainly, Bank had the duty to take proper course of action against such fraudulent withdrawal from the account of a deceased account holder. The Bank does not inform the Fora as to what action they have taken against the alleged fraudulent transaction dt.09.06.2015. The Forum thinks that appropriate action has not yet been taken by the O.P. Bank Authority till this date. The loss for such fraudulent transaction and defalcation of Rs.50000/- from the account of the deceased Ajiman Bibi should have to be sustained by the heirs of Ajiman Bibi and the heirs of Ajiman Bibi including the complainants should be at liberty to realize the said monetary loss from the bank and from the person who has actively defrauded. The complainant and bank should take proper steps against the said fraudster. The complainants also will be at liberty to place their grievances in appropriate place
against such fraudulent transaction and this Consumer Forum right now cannot provide any monetary relief to their grievances
Proper fee paid
Hence, ordered
that the compliant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 hereby dismissed on contest against O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed ex parte against O.P. No. 3
Let a copy of this order be given to both the parties free of cost.
