The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Balasore District Co-operative Bank, Khaira, O.P No.2 is the Secretary, B.B.C.C Bank, Balasore, O.P No.3 is Madhabi Nayak, Asuria, Balasore, O.P No.3 (a) is Smt. Hemalata Nayak, Asuria, Balasore and O.P No.3 (b) is Sri Bhaktahari Nayak, Asuria, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps and daughter-in-law of one Kumar Nayak, S/o. Sadananda Nayak of Village- Asuria, who had opened an account bearing No.00795 with O.P No.1, where his wife Madhabi Nayak was a nominee. But, due to cut-off the conjugal relationship with his wife, Kumar Nayak submitted one application on 05.05.2008 before the O.P No.2 to insert the name of the Complainant deleting the name of Madhabi. On receipt of said application, the O.P No.2 though assured, but did not change the nominee causing mental shock by O.P No.2, resulting father-in-law (Kumar Nayak) of the Complainant has been died. Thereafter, the Complainant filed application before the O.P No.2 on 08.11.2013 to change the nominee, but the O.P No.2 did not pay any heed to it and accordingly, the Complainant served legal notice to the O.Ps No.1 & 2 on 27.11.2013. Cause of action to file this case arose on 08.11.2013. The Complainant has prayed to change the nominee in the name of the Complainant along with compensation for mental agony. Neither the Complainant nor her Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.1 & 2 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 have further submitted that one Kumar Nayak, S/o. Sadananda Nayak of Village- Asuria had opened an account bearing No.00795 with O.P No.1, where his wife Madhabi Nayak was the nominee. The depositor died on 29.03.2013 and after his death, the existing nominee Madhabi Nayak while claimed to release the deposit money in her favour, the Complainant through her Advocate served an advocate notice on 27.11.2013 to the O.P No.2 requesting to change the name of the nominee from Madhabi Nayak to the name of the Complainant on the ground that the deceased depositor during his life time i.e. on 05.05.2008 had filed one application before the O.P No.2 to change the name of said nominee. After receipt of the said advocate notice, the O.P No.2 through his advocate had replied by expressing his inability to change the name of the nominee at that stage as the depositor had already died and also given an opportunity to the Complainant to get an order from any competent court to that effect within a month, failing which the O.P No.2 will release the amount in favour of the existing nominee. As the Complainant failed to produce the said order within the stipulated period, the O.Ps No.1 & 2 have released the deposit money in favour of the nominee-O.P No.3. The claim of the Complainant regarding filing of application on 05.05.2008 by the deceased depositor is false and if he had filed such application, then why he sat silently from 05.05.2008 to till his death i.e. on 20.03.2013 without verifying the follow-up action of the Bank on his application. The Complainant though has filed one xerox copy of the said application, but no such application in original is there with the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and the then Branch Manager of Khaira Branch has retired much before. So, they are not competent to change the name of nominee especially after death of the depositor as had claimed by the Complainant. Moreover, the xerox copy of the application filed by the Complainant is not the genuine one and the fact that she might have created such document in collusion with the ex-retired Branch Manager of B.B.C.C Bank, Khaira Branch to get the money of the deceased depositor, which cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, during the life time of the deceased depositor, who was the Consumer when he has not complained in any manner for any deficiency of service by this O.Ps No.1 & 2 and when this Complainant is not a beneficiary of such service under O.Ps No.1 & 2 and after giving opportunity to the Complainant, when the O.Ps No.1 & 2 have already been released the money in favour of the nominee-O.P No.3, so the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in this case. Hence, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                    4. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.Ps No.3, 3(a) and 3(b) for filing of written version, but they have not filed their written version in this case. The O.Ps No. 3(a) and 3 (b) are set ex-parte. Neither the O.Ps No. 3(a) and 3(b) nor their Advocates was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 1986 ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor her Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, her pleading remains as it is. According to her pleading, the account holder Kumar Nayak has applied on 05.05.2008 before the O.P No.2 to insert the name of the Complainant by deleting the name of Madhabi (his wife) as nominee in the alleged account bearing No.00795. The Complainant has not disclosed about the nature of the account. However, according to her, the account holder Kumar Nayak died and the death certificate disclosed about the date of death was on 29.03.2013. Till death, the name of the nominee has not been changed and so also thereafter. When the O.P No.1-Bank refused to pay the claim amount to the Complainant, she came to this Forum for relief as per complaint petition. On the other hand, the O.Ps No. 3(a) and 3(b) are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. It has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps No.1 & 2 that after death of the account holder Kumar Nayak, the nominee name could not be changed and the amount has been disbursed to the nominee as per record. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case and if she has any right to get the relief, that should be decided by the competent court of law. In the instant case, the Complainant is claiming to be a Consumer. The Consumer has been duly defined in the Section-2(d) of C.P Act, 1986 and the Complainant has been defined according to Section-2(b) of C.P Act, 1986 and according to Section-2(b) (v) of C.P Act, 1986, in case of death of a Consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint. So, according to these definitions, the Complainant does not come under the heading of the Consumer. So, when she is not a Consumer, her complaint case is not maintainable in this Forum and the O.Ps No.1 & 2-Bank has duly disbursed the amount to the recorded nominee.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I found no reasonable ground to allow the case of the Complainant as she is not a Consumer and her case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps No.1 & 2 and on ex-parte against the O.Ps No. 3(a) & 3(b), but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 18th day of February, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.