Delhi

North

CC/9/2024

SADHANA CHATHLI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.9/2024

In the matter of

Mrs. Sadhna Chathli,

R/o, A-104, Saya Zenith,

Near Shipra Society,

Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201014                           …      Complainant

VERSUS

Branch Manager, Canara Bank

Fountain Branch, Chandani Chowk,

Delhi-110006                                              …     Opposite Party No.1

 

The Managing Director, Canara Bank Ltd.

Through Fountain Branch, Chandani Chowk,

Delhi-110006                                              …     Opposite Party No. 2

 

ORDER

27.02.2024

Present: None for Complainant

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. This complaint has been filed by one Ms Sadhana Chaitali alleging deficiency of service by the Branch manager, Canara Bank, Fountain Branch, Delhi (OP-1 herein). OP-2 is the Managing Director of the said bank. We have heard the arguments of Shri Vivek Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, on admissibility of this complaint on three different dates of listing before reserving the order on admissibility of this complaint.
2. The Complainant states that she is the sister of the deceased namely Late Shri Ashish Vohra who opened some fixed deposit accounts with OP-1 branch tentatively in the year 1980. The said account holder expired in the year 2016.It is also stated that after the death of Late Shri Ashish Vohra, the Complainant herein and their mother namely Smt Rita Vohra (now deceased) “stepped into the shoes of Late Shri Ashish Vohra under the provisions of the CPC for release of the said amount”. The Complainant and the mother were residing in USA and in the month of December 2017, the mother namely Late Smt Rita Vohra allegedly visited the OP-1 branch for releasing the amount held in the fixed deposit account held in the name of Late Shri Ashish Vohra. Thereafter the Complainant, through their Advocate, Shri Vivek Kumar, approached the bank again in the year 2021 to complete formalities and to get the amount released. The communications continued till 29.06.2022, when the last set of documents was submitted with the OP-1 Bank. The Complainant alleges that the OP Bank did not take any action till date; hence this complaint has been filed.
3. We have perused the complaint, documents filed along with complaint and the additional documents filed by the Complainant. We have also gone through additional submissions filed on behalf of the Complainant on 15.02.2024.
4. We have noticed certain discrepancies in the complaint. First, the Complainant herein has not identified his deceased brother and their mother by name in the entire complaint. We could gather the names of the deceased brother, who is the original account holder with the OP Bank, and the name of the mother only from the documents annexed with the complaint and the additional documents filed by the Complainant.
5. Secondly, the Complainant herein has stated that she and their mother stepped into the shoes of the deceased brother/ son namely Late Shri Ashish Vohra, but on our enquiry why the mother namely Smt. Rita Vohra is not arrayed as Complainant, it was informed that Smt Rita Vohra has also expired. However there is no pleading in the complaint or document on record regarding her demise.
6. Third, the documents filed along with the complaint indicate that the deceased account holder was married to one Ms. Song Nhi Thi Phan. It is also seen from the records that one Ms Vandana Jain is also the sister of the Complainant and deceased account holder. But none of these family members are arrayed as party to this complaint. Further the complainant has not filed any surviving member certificate or legal heir certificate to substantiate her claim as sole receiver of the proceeds of the deceased account holder. These gaps in the complaint cast a shadow of doubt about the genuineness of the complaint.
7. At this stage, we would also like to record here that the FDR accounts in question were in the name of Late Shri Ashish Vohra. Hence Late Shri Ashish Vohra was the consumer of the OP Bank within the meaning of the section 2 (7) of the CPA, 2019. After his death, in view of section 2 (5) of CPA, 2019, the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased step into the shoes of the consumer to become a complainant. In the case in hand, there is no document on record to suggest that the Complainant herein is either the legal heir or the legal representative of the deceased account holder. The documents indicate that apart from the Complainant, there are at least three more legal representatives of the deceased account holder namely (i) Late Smt Rita Vohra, mother of the deceased account holder (although it has been stated during arguments that she has also expired, but there is no pleading or document on record to suggest her death); (ii) Ms Song Nhi Thi Phan- wife of the deceased account holder and (iii) Ms Vandana Jain, another sister of the deceased account holder. It is not explained in the entire complaint that why other legal heirs/ legal representatives have not approached this Commission. There is also no document on record to suggest that the Complainant herein has been appointed sole legal representative of the deceased account holder. Hence, in absence of any pleading or document on record to suggest the locus of the Complainant herein, the Complainant herein cannot be considered as a consumer within a meaning of section 2 (7) of CPA, 2019 and complainant within the meaning of section 2 (5) of the CPA, 2019.
8. We would also like to discuss on the aspect of delay in filing this complaint. The Complainant has stated that the Complainant's mother came from US and visited the OP bank in the month of December, 2017 after the account holder namely Sh. Ashish Vohra expired in the year 2016 for completing the formalities of encashment the FDRs. If the bank was approached in the year 2017, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768] and also in the matter of State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121], this complaint is time barred and cannot be entertained.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah  (supra) case, has held that for the purpose of calculating the limitation under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the date on which first cause of action has arisen should be considered. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, if the delay is not duly explained.
10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in B S Agriculture (I) (Supra) case has held that Consumer Forum should deal with the merit of the case only if the complaint is filed within the limitation period or if the Complainant has explained the cause of delay. In such case, the Consumer Forum is required to pass a reasoned order condoning a delay. In the case in hand, the Complainant has not explained the reasons for the delay the limitation period also started from the said date. Accordingly, this complaint is hopelessly time barred. The Complainant has not explained any reason for delay in filing this complaint. Further as the documents were filed on 16.06.2021 the cause of action and if such deposit of documents is considered as first cause of action. This complaint is time barred as cause of action expired on 15.06.2023 and this complaint was filed only on 05.01.2024. Here again there is no explanation for the delay in filing of this complaint. As the delay in filing the complaint is neither fully explained nor the Complainant has filed any application seeking condonation of delay, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as well.
11. Before parting, we also notice that in the complaint that the Complainant has referred to three annexures namely Annexure-2, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 but none of these annexures are properly marked and identified. There is also no Annexure-1 referred to in the entire complaint. The pages of the complaint are also very haphazard. We had very difficult time in reading the complaint as the pages of the complaint are not arranged in a proper sequence. In the complaint after page no.2, page nos.5, 4 and 3 should be placed in that sequence. As there was wrong sequencing of pages, in the complaint with the wrong arrangements of the pages, we had trouble making sense of the pleading. The Advocate filing the complaint must keep examine the complaint before filing, which, in this case, was not done properly. We suggest to Shri Vivek Kumar, Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, who has filed this complaint, to be more cautious in future.
12. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this complaint is liable to be dismissed on the grounds (i) the Complainant herein is neither the Consumer nor the Complainant as defined under the provisions of the CPA, 2019; (ii) there is a delay in filing of the complaint, which has not been explained; (iii) the pleading casts a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the complaint; and (iv) the complaint is devoid of merit. Hence, this complaint is dismissed on all these grounds at admission stage itself. No costs.
13. Office is directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant to the Complainant after keeping the photo copy of the same in the record. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the law. Thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

                                                                                                                                                                       Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member