IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/56/2017
Date of Filing: 11.04.17 Date of Final Order: 28.12.18
Complainant: 1. Sayantani Roy, (minor)
2. Brintika Roy (minor)
Daughters of Late Sudip Roy
3.. Sampa Roy, W/O Late Sudip Roy,
66, Nirupama Devi Roadm Ukilpara,
PO&PS-Berhampore, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Berhampore Branch
PO&PS-Berhampore, Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
2. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Mecheda Branch,
PO&PS- Mecheda, Dist-East Mindapore,
Pin-742137
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Surojit Banerjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri. Satinath chandra
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sayantani Roy & two Others (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Berhampore Branch and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The brief facts of the complaint case are as follows:
One Sudip Roy, since deceased, husband of Complainant No.3 used to work at Kolaghat Thermal Power Station and drew his salary from account No.3697 from the OP No.1 and he also opened a PPF account being No. 80900178291 at OP No.2 Bank. The said Sudip Roy died on 09.03.2016 leaving behind the Complainants as his legal heirs. That a sum of Rs. 8,17,068/- is lying in the PPF account and Rs. 84,893.24/- is lying in his salary account. The Complainant No.3 submitted prescribed Claim Form for receiving payment but the bank authorities neither paid any amount to the Complainant No.3 nor asked the Complainant No. 3 to fulfill requirement, if any. Thereafter, the Complainant No.3 served a notice upon the OP No.2 through her Advocate dated 06.01.17 requesting the OP No.2 to pay the amounts lying with the two accounts but the OP No.2 neither paid the amount nor gave any reply to the said notice. Hence, the Complainants filed the case praying for a direction upon the OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.9,01,961.24/- together with interest till payment, Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and agony.
The OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version on 07.12.17 contending that the complaint is not maintainable and the Complainants have no cause of action to file the application and the case is barred by jurisdiction. It is the specific case of the OP No.2 that the PPF account No.30312353472 is lying with the OP No.2 in the name of Sudip Roy who nominated one Goutam Roy to withdraw the amount after his death and no claim has yet been lodged by the said nominee. So far the salary account is concerned none has been recorded as nominee of Sudip Roy. The bank in its own discretion intended to release the fund in respect of salary account of Sudip Roy to the Complainants and the OP No.2 asked the Complainants to file required copies of documents along with indemnity bond and other relevant documents but till date no such documents has been submitted by them. The OP No.2 is willing to pay the fund to the legal heirs of deceased Sudip Roy subject to submission of duly filled in prescribed form in original along with relevant documents. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.
The OP No.1 filed written version on 06.11.17 contending that the complaint is no maintainable as the Complaint is barred by jurisdiction. It is the specific case of the OP No.2 that the account numbers mentioned in the complaint are lying with the OP No.2 and the OP No. 1 is not a necessary party.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Are the Complainants consumers under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged ?
- Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that the Complainants are consumers as they hired the services of the OPs for consideration.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 and 2 submits that the Complainants are not consumers.
Having gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence and the documents on record, we find that the Complainants are consumers in view of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as Sudip Roy has a salary account with the OP No.1 and the office of the OP No.1 is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also urged that this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action did not arise within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is contended that Sudip Roy had/has no account in the State Bank of India, Berhampore Branch. It is argued that the statement of the Complainant regarding drawl of salary by Sudip Roy from the OP No.1 bank is not correct as Sudip Roy had salary account and PPF account with the OP No.2. It is urged that the office of the OP No.2 is not within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
It this respect he draws our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1560/2004 dated 20.10.09 where in it is observed that “Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the Learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the Complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. [vide G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P.79] In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.’’
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence and the documents on record. It appears form the documents filed by the Complainants and the written version of the OP NO.2 that Sudip Roy had salary account and PPF account with the OP NO.2 and the office of OP No.2 is not within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The Complainants have failed to establish that Sudip Roy had/had any salary/PPF account in OP No.1 bank. With due regard to the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs., we think that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as the office of the OP No.2 is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, it is held that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that the OPs have deficiency in service and the OPs may be directed to pay the amount in PPF account and salary account left by Sudip Roy and the OPs may be directed to pay compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the OPs have no deficiency in service and the complaint may be dismissed with cost. We have already decided that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, it is held that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. The Complainants are at liberty to file fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum for redressal.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 11.04.17 and admitted on 19.04.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/56/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
