Bihar

Gaya

CC/20/2016

Kusum Kumari Sinha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar Sharan

21 Jun 2017

ORDER

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. - 20 of 2016

Shrimati Kusum Kumari Sinha  W/o  late Sunil Kumar Sinha resident of mohalla -A.P Colony, P.S- Rampur ,District -Gaya.. Complainant

                                        Vs
1. Branch manager, Central Bank of India, Gaya College branch, Rampur, District- Gaya;
2. Regional manager, Central Bank of India, Patna regional office, block B, 2nd floor, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Banglow Road, Patna, Bihar .....Opposite Parties.

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated:- 21^st  June of

                                                ORDER

                                                          Case No. -20 of 2016

                             1. The instant case has been filed by the complainant Kusum Kumari Sinha against the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service and also to get due amount payable by the Opposite Parties.

                             2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant Sunil Kumar Sinha has applied for loan before the Opposite Party No. 1, Central Bank of India, Gaya College branch, Rampur, Gaya to purchase  motorcycle and in lieu of taking loan he has secured its bond of insurance policy vide Policy No. dated 28 September

                                                            Case No. -20 of 2016

Opposite Party No. 1 to return the insurance paper of her husband but the Opposite party No.1 ignored the same. On 12 February

                                                          Case No. -20 of 2016                  

 3. The opposite party appeared and filed Written Statement in  form of objection stating therein that complainant's deceased husband was consumer of opposite   Party No.1 and he had taken loan  vide Loan Account No. .₹mistake. However, deducting ₹                        4. The main point of decision of before this court is whether the complainant has been able to prove her case and where she is entitled to get the relief as sought for.
                     

                                                          Case No. -20 of 2016

                                 5. In support of their respective case both parties have filed their documents and evidences on affidavit.

                               6. The opposite party has filed statement account from 13th February

                           7. Admitted facts of the case are as follows:
a.) The opposite party Central Bank of India had sanctioned loan amounting ₹ 35,

b.) Late Sunil Kumar Sinha died on 14th October  

                                                          Case No. -20 of 2016

d.) Such received amount which was payable to the complainant had been transferred to another account by mistake.

                        8. The complainant has filed original renewal premium receipt bearing No. of late Sunil Kumar Sinha and status report report of policy number of late Sunil Kumar Sinha. Besides these documents he has also filed xerox copy of death certificate of late Sunil Kumar Sinha. The opposite party has filed statement of account from 13 February                         9. From the admitted facts of the case, Evidences on affidavit of both parties and documents present on case record it appears that the husband of the complainant late Sunil Kumar Sinha was sanctioned ₹ 35,

                                                          Case No. -20 of 2016

₹court.It has been stated in evidence on affidavit by the Opposite Party that after deducting ₹/- was deposited by Draft No.                   10. Admittedly opposite has not credited amount received on the LIC bond of lates husband of the complainant after adjusting loan amount and due to negligence credited in another account the same. Undoubtedly the Opposite party has caused deficiency in service and in this

                                                          Case No. -20 of 2016

way the complainant has suffered physical harassment and mental agony.

                     11. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get compensation. Since the opposite party has fairly admitted  his fault and deposited the due amount of the complainant in court ,so by taking liberal view he is directed to pay ₹

                                                                                   Dictated and corrected

Female Member                 Male Member                      President

Sunita Kumari                      Syed Mohtashim Akhtar                    Ramesh Chandra Singh