IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/54/2017 .
Date of Filing: 05.04.2017. Date of Final Order: 25.08.2017.
Complainant: Maniklal Dutta, S/O Late Bhanuja Behari Dutta of Mulan Hotel(near Kalpana House),
P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore Town, Dist. Murshidabad Pin 742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, (Main Branch), Dist Central Co-operative Bank Ltd,
48 B.B. Sen Road, P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore Town, Dist. Murshidabad.
2. Madhumita Dutta, D/O Maniklal Dutta, 124, A.C. Road P.O. Khagra,
P.S. Berhampore Town, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742103.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee …………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya- President.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for direction upon the Op No.1 Bank to return the entire amount with interest to the complainant.
The complaint’s case, in brief, is that the complainant received retirement benefit for his retirement on 31.3.2008 from Kandi Co-operative A.R.D. Bank Ltd and fixed deposited the same with Op No.1 Dist Central Co-Operative Bank jointly in his name and in the name of his daughter –OP No.2 where eith4r or survival can operate. The quarterly interest of those FDs has been transferred to the complainant’s savings Account No. 104256 corresponding to A/C No. 122000202288. The complainant was solely dependent on those interests as there was no provision of any pension in his service. The wife of the complainant is a High School teacher, their relation was strain. He was admitted in mental hospital during the period 8.1.10 ti 01.7.2011 though he was fit. After discharge from mental hospital he was compelled to transfer this dwelling house in favour of his daughter, OP No.2. In the month of Febrary’12 the complainant was compelled to leave his dwelling house and bound to live in the house of his relative. He was mentally fit and sole owner of those FDs. He was in helpless condition filed the CC-67/12 and allowed the prayer on contrast on 31.07.2013 to renew and operate his savings A/C. The complainant now resides in a Hotel. Again, the complainant filed another case No. CC-117/14 where contested order allowing to renew the FDs as per terms and conditions were allowed. Another CC-164/15 was also allowed ex parte. Due to financial stringency and interest rate of OpNo.1 being low the complainant intends to withdraw the entire fixed deposit amount with interest to invest in Nationalized Bank or any other fund but the OP sent a letter dt. 8.3.17 asking for the valid court order giving exclusive right to the complainant as well as right to operate as per his wish. Hence, the instant complaint case.
Decision with Reasons.
The instant case has been taken up for hearing ex pate against both the OPs.
The OP No.1 is the Bank and OP No.2 is the daughter of the complainant who is the joint holder of the impugned FDs.
The complainant has filed evidence on-affidavit ex patre along with the relevant documents in support of his case including the copy of final order of earlier two cases in CC-67/12 dt.31.07.2013 and in CC-117/14 dt. 13.02.2015 both directing OP No.2 to produce all the original FD certificates and Op No.1 was directed to allow the complainant to renew those FDs for further period and also to operate his savings account. In both those cases same order was passed.
In those cases there was no prayer for giving exclusive right upon the complainant to withdraw the entire FD amount along with interest to invest in any other Nationalized Bank or any other fund.
There is no prayer for reinvest jointly in the name of his daughter-OP No.2.
The question of exclusive right deleting the right of Op No.2, daughter of the complainant being not decided in earlier cases cropped up from the same dispute between father and daughter having F.D jointly.
It is true that in this case the OP No.2-Daughter has not turned up to contest the instant case inspite of receiving notice of this case along with complaint petition and document.
It is clear that the entire amount is solely the retirement benefit of the complainant namely gratuity, provident Fund etc and at present residing separately in a Hotel at Khagra and taking meal from another Hotel.
The document as to rate of interest of OP No.1 has not come before this forum to decide that the rate of interest is much low than the present rate of interest of Nationalized Bank.
That being so and exclusive right excluding the right of the OP No.2 being not declared in the earlier two contested cases being No. 67/12 and 117/14 wherefrom the instant case has been cropped up we are of view that we cannot declare the exclusive right of the complainant in the impugned F.Ds excluding the right of joint holder-Op no.2, the daughter of the complainant. Though the question of exclusive right of the complainant on the deposited amount of Fds has not been decided in the earlier cases i.e CC-67/12 & CC-117/14 but those cases have been relied upon in this case where the specific prayer is to return the entire fixed deposit amount along with interest to the complainant. In the earlier two cases, the OP No.2-daughter of the complainant appeared before the Forum to contest the case and contested order was passed but in the case in hand, the OP No.2-daughter of the complainant, in spite of receiving the notice and copy of the complaint from the Forum, did not appear to contest the case. As a result, the case has been fixed for ex parte hearing.
That being so, though the question of exclusive right has not been decided in the earlier two cases, this case is to be decided separately on its own leg.
To prove the case, the complainant has adduced evidence –on-affidavit along with materials on record ex parte.
Considering the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, it is clear that the money involved in the impugned FDs are the exclusive money of the complainant which were his retirement benefits i.e gratuity and provident fund.
It is also clear that the impugned Fixed Deposit amount are in the joint-names of the complainant and his daughter-OP No.2 where the complainant is the first party and the daughter of the complainant-OP No. 2 is the second party in the mode of operation as “EITHER OR SURVIVOR” as per argument of the complainant and also as per complaint .
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of view that there is no impediment for the OP No.1-Bank to disburse all the F.Ds kept in the joint names of the complainant and his daughter along with interest to the complainant following the Banking rule where the mode of operation is “Either or Survivor” for reinvestment in a Nationalized Bank or a Post Office.
Hence,
Ordered
That the Consumer Complaint No. 54/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against both the OPs.
The OP No.1-Bank is directed to allow the complainant to withdraw all the impugned F.Ds along with interest within 30 days from the date of this order following the Banking rule where the mode of operation is “Either or Survivor” to reinvest the same to any nationalized bank or Post office, failing which the OP No.1 Bank is to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay as fine and the amount so accumulated by Demand Draft shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Complainant is directed to reinvest the principal to any nationalized bank or Post office and submit the photo copy of the said certificates to the Forum with 15days after receiving the F.D.s alongwith interest from the Bank-OP No.1.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
