DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  FORUM

                                        NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

                                        C. C.  CASE  NO. 241/2015

   Date of Filing:                 Date of Admission                Date of Disposal:

    20.04.2015                  30.04.2015                         03.11.2015                       

 Complainant                                = Vs. =                            O.Ps.

Kazi Arsaduzzaman                                               1. Branch Manager

S/o. Late Kazi Asaduzzaman                                    UCO Bank, Barasat Branch

residing at Kazipara (North),                                   P.O. & P.S.-Barasat,

P.O.-Kazipara, P.S.-Barasat,                                    Dist-24 Pgs(N), Kolkata-700124.

Kolkata-700124,                                                    2. Kazi Sahazadud Zaman

Dist-North 24 Parganas.                                           S/o. Late Kazi Asaduzzaman

                                                                                         Residing at Kazipara (North),

                                                                                         P.O.-Kazipara, P.S.-Barasat,

                                                                                         Dist-North 24 Parganas.

                                                                                         Kolkata-700124.

Advocate Name for the complainant:-  Vaskar Ray & Others.

Advocate Name for the OPs:- Ashutosh Samaddar (OP No-1)

                                                          Rajesh Biswas (OP No-2)

                           P R E S E N T  :- Smt. Bandana Roy …………………President

                                                :- Sri Rabideb Mukhopadhyay……Member

                                                                        J U D G E M E N T

Facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant and his brother Kazi Sahazadud Zaman (OP No-2) and their mother Manjura Khatun jointly purchased certificate sum of Rs 24, 000/- dated 23.11.1995, Rs 33, 700/- dated 07. 12.1995 and Rs 25, 500/- dated 11.03.1996 from the OP No-1 under Kuber Yojana Scheme, specifically mentioned in schedule.

Complainant stated that the mother of the complainant Manjura Khatun died on 30.10.2011 leaving behind two sons Kazi Arsaduzzaman (complainant) and Kazi Sahazadud Zaman (OP No-2) as legal heirs and successors. Thus the complainant and the OP No-2 became 50% share in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule.

Complainant also stated that after maturity of the said certificate, mentioned in the schedule. The complainant deposited the original certificate in respect of the schedule property before the OP No-1 for issuance of FD/KY and the OP No-1 duly granted receipts acknowledging the same.

Dictated and corrected                                                                             Contd. …. 2/-

C. C. Case No.-241/2015

- :: 2:: -

Complainant further stated that the complainant is entitled to get 50% share of the amount mentioned in the schedule but after maturity the OP No-1 intentionally and deliberately avoided to pay the same in favour of the complainant as such the complainant made representation before the OP No-1 by orally and written with a request to pay the same but the OP No-1 did not take any steps and thereafter the complainant sent two notices dated 16.01.2014 and 07.04.2014 through his advocate Mr. Habibur Rahaman to the OP No-1 but the OP No-1 did not pay and heed in order to pay the share of the complainant in respect of the property.

Complainant also stated that the complainant came to learn from reliable a source that the OP No-2 in collusion with the OP No-1 trying encash the entire amount. The OP No-2 has no right or authority to grab the entire amount as referred. Hence the complaint.

OPs have contested the case by filing separate written version.

OP No-1 stated that the instant complaint is not maintainable in law against OP No-1 who has meticulously followed Banking Regulation Act, 1949 visa-vis Reserve Bank of India under whose supervision control and rules, all banks and financial institution in India works. 

OP No-1 also stated that in respect of the paragraph-2 of the complaint, the OP no-1 stated that Manjura Khatun, Sahazaduzzaman and Arshaduzzaman opened three fixed deposit a/c of Rs 24, 000/-, Rs 33, 700/- & Rs 25, 500/- on 23.11.1995, 07.12.1995 & 11.03.1996 respectively for a period of six years with operational instruction “any one of us” I.e. on maturity payment would be made to any one of the three depositors as demanded. On maturity of the above mentioned fixed deposits, they were subsequently renewed with maturity value and with same operational instruction. 

OP No-1 further stated that the OP No-1 was informed about the death of Manjura Khatun, but no change in operational instruction of the said deposit accounts was instructed for implementation by any of the surviving account holders while the deposit a/c were renewed. The demand of 50% share of the deposits by the complainant at a later stage i.e. after payment was made as a legal heir of deceased Manjura Khatun requires direction from the proper Court of Law as it would deviate their operational instruction which was recorded in the account opening card at their own option.

Dictated and corrected                                                                             Contd. …. 3/-

C. C. Case No.-241/2015

- :: 3:: -

OP No-1 stated that meanwhile Md. Sahazaduzzaman, one of the surviving depositors reported loss of deposit receipts and prayed for issuance of duplicate receipts. On the strength of an indemnity letter and other documents, duplicate receipts were issued subject to condition that no payment would be made before maturity. On maturity two receipts were enchased on 03.07.2013 & 04.07.2013 after obtaining due valid discharge by Md. Sahazaduzzaman OP No-2 in terms of operational instruction.

OP No-2 also stated that thereafter complainant deposited the original deposit receipts for payment long after their maturity and after payment of two deposit receipts to the OP No-2, one of the surviving depositors on valid discharge of certificate. Still there is one certificate which has not been matured for encashment and on receipt of complainant the same was not allowed to be encashed, until and unless the legal battle between the two surviving depositors were resolved.

OP No-2 stated that the mother of the complainant and the OP No-2 namely Manjura Khatun deposited his money some of with the complainant and some of with the OP No-2 in the Post Office and in the bank. After demise of mother the complainant without taking any consent and without giving any share of money unilaterally withdraw a huge amount of money from the post office and which were deposited in the joint name of Manjura Khatun and the complainant. some few amount was lying with the joint name of Manjura Khatun and the OP no-2 with the OP No-1 and after demise of the Manjura Khatun the OP No-2 is illegally entitled to withdraw such amount and there is/was no illegality either from the side of the OP No-1 or the OP No-2. As there was dispute and difference was cropped up between the complainant and the OP No-2 so in presence of the local respectable persons settlement was done by and between the complainant and the OP No-2 and in such settlement the complainant himself put his signature and thus he cannot file this case by overruling his own decision and he is debarred by the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.

Point for Decision:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision

            We have carefully gone through the affidavit in chief filed by the OP No-1 & 2 and the complainant. It appears that OP No-2 submitted in his written version that the mother of the complainant and the OP No-2 namely Manjura Khatun deposited his money some of with the complainant and some of with the

Dictated and corrected                                                                             Contd. …. 4/-

C. C. Case No.-241/2015

- :: 4:: -

OP No-2 in the Post Office and in the bank. After demise of mother the complainant without taking any consent and without giving any share of money unilaterally withdraw a huge amount of money from the post office and which were deposited in the joint name of Manjura Khatun and the complainant. some few amount was lying with the joint name of Manjura Khatun and the OP no-2 with the OP No-1 and after demise of the Manjura Khatun the OP No-2 is illegally entitled to withdraw such amount and there is/was no illegality either from the side of the OP No-1 or the OP No-2. As there was dispute and difference was cropped up between the complainant and the OP No-2 so in presence of the local respectable persons settlement was done by and between the complainant and the OP No-2 and in such settlement the complainant himself put his signature and thus he cannot file this case by overruling his own decision and he is debarred by the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. On the other hand OP No-1 in their affidavit in chief has stated that Mnajura Khatun and Md. Sahazaduzzaman and Arshaduzzaman opened three fixed deposit a/c of Rs 24, 000/-, Rs 33, 700/- & Rs 25, 500/- on 23.11.1995, 07.12.1995 & 11.03.1996 respectively for a period of six years with operational instruction “any one of us” I.e. on maturity payment would be made to any one of the three depositors. On maturity of the above mentioned fixed deposits, they were subsequently renewed with maturity value and with same operational instruction. OP No-1 has filed the copy of masters circular on customer service in bank. Clause 20.1.1 says in the case of deposit accounts were the depositors had utilized the nomination facility and made a valid nomination or where the account was opened with the survive clause “any one or survivor” the payment of the balance in the deposit account to the survivor of a deceased deposit account holder represents a valid discharge of the banks liability provide. Complainant gave scheduled and certificate of claim as follows:-

                                                                                                                 Total Rs 1, 78, 721.00

                                                                                                                   + Plus interest if any

Dictated and corrected                                                                             Contd. …. 5/-

C. C. Case No.-241/2015

- :: 5:: -

            After carefully gone through the materials on records, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get 50% share of the maturity value. But we do not find any deficiency on the part of the OP No-1 and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation in this case.

Hence

Ordered,

                                            that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest  against the O.Ps in part.

OP No-1 is directed to pay 50% of the maturity amount to the complainant with 9% interest per annum till final payment within one month from the date of this order, failing which OP No-1 shall have to pay sum of Rs 100/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the OP No-1 in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.

Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.

      Member                                                                                                  President

Dictated & Corrected by me.