Date of filing:- 11/03/2015
Date of Order:- 15/03/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 14 of 2015.
Smt. Prabha Chhapdia@Chhapria, aged about 52(fifty two) years, wife of Kailash Prasad Chhapdia R/o- Near Ganesh Bhawan, Main road, Bargarh...... ..... ..... Complainant.
Bank of India represented through it’s Branch Manager, At/Po/Dist- Bargarh .... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri D. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri A.K. Dash, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.15/03/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President.
Brief facts of the case:–
The case of the Complainant in brief is that, the parents of their daughter namely Puja Chhapdia had opened three numbers of fixed deposit in her name while she was a minor in the Bank of India in Jamsedpur Branch(Branch Code No.4500) out of A/C No. 3120 vide fixed deposit No.5218127, 5218128 and 5218129 wherein the present Complainant as her mother Guardian was the nominee of her daughter and the Fixed deposits were also being renewed time to time.
In course of time the said daughter of the Complainant grown up and got married on Dt.23.05.2010 and to the ill-luck of the Complainant her said daughter died in an accident on Dt.12.03.2012 being issue less on the sudden demise of her daughter the Complainant was shocked but recovering from the shock she went to the said branch of Jamsedpur to claim the said fixed deposit amount but the Opposite Party did not release the same showing different pleas and for the last time when the Opposite Party finally denied to disburse the said deposits, the Complainant filed the case along with the documents to that affect praying therein for a direction to the Opposite Party to disburse the amount in her favor as she being the nominee with a further prayer for compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only, on perusal of the Complainant and hearing the counsel for her the case was admitted and on being noticed the Opposite Party appeared through his advocate and filed his version.
In it’s version the Opposite Party has denied the said FDR of the Complainant in their Branch to be false and fabricated one saying that there is no account exist in the name of the said Pooja Chhapdia in their Branch and also denied the Complainant as being the nominee of such deposit and also denied to disburse the amount if at all such an account existed on the ground that after her marriage her, her in–law successor would be entitled to get the amount to that affect filed a separate petition later on to which objection from the side of the Complainant was filed.
So we clubbed together both the complaint, version of the Opposite Party and the objection of the Complainant to that affect and heard both counsel of the respective parties finally at the time of final hearing of the case, and having gone through the entire case record and the documents from both the Parties and after hearing both sides counsels some point for determination as mentioned below cropped up before for adjudication.
Firstly whether the said deposits were made during the minority of the said Pooja Chhapria.
Secondly whether the Complainant is entitled to get the same amount or not & whether she is entitled for any compensation .
Having gone through entire records and hearing the counsel, it is pertinent to mention here that, it is quite evident from the certificates issued by the Opposite Party in favor of Pooja Chhapria, is of the Dt. 30.11.1999 against the said deposits of Rs.18,220/-(Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred twenty)only denomination in each of the three certificates which is nearly about eleven year prior to her marriage and those certificates were being renewed time to time, so it can be safely concluded that those deposits were made during her minorities which also certifies that the same were made certainly by her parents as such the contention made by the Complainant is true in toto hence our views goes in her favor and answered accordingly.
Secondly while dealing with the points for determination as to whether the Complainant is entitled for the disbursements of the same in her favor, it is found that just after two years of the marriage of the daughter, the Pooja chhapria she has died on Dt. 12.03.2012 being issue less so here the question of the entitlements of the property of the deceased vest on the first class heirs of her and the amount of property in question is as of her parents would certainly be devolved with her parents or her mother as per the settled principle of law as per Hindu Succession Act, specially when the deceased has died issue less. As such our answered with regard to the point of determination goes in her favor.
Further with regard to the claim of compensation and litigation expenses in view of such circumstances it should have been the prime duty of the financial institution to scrutiniese such case at their end as soon as possible and should not make any body of such nature of case to knock the door of any judicial body but in this case they have not done so which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service as such are liable there under, hence our order follows .
-: O R D E R :-
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to disburse the alleged amounts of FDR after properly calculating all the certificates submitted by the Complainant with scheduled interest along with additional interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum to her from the date of filing of the case till the date of Order, along with Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only as litigation expenses with in one month from the date of order and in default of which, it would accrue an interest @ 12% (twelve percent) per annum till realization of the same.
Accordingly the case is allowed and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
President.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
