View 24749 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 24749 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 2945 Cases Against Central Bank Of India
Krishan Kumar filed a consumer case on 06 Dec 2023 against Central Bank Of India in the Fatehabad Consumer Court. The case no is CC/39/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Dec 2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.
Sh.Rajbir Singh, President
Smt.Harisha Mehta & Sh.K.S.Nirania, Members
Complaint No. 291 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 26.07.2019.
Date of order: 05.12.2023.
Ajit Singh son of Ram Kishan resident of village & post Office, Khabra Kalan Tehsil & Fatehabad.
….Complainant.
Versus
1.Dakhsin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Bhattu Road, Fatehabad through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division.
2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Post Box No.106 Jeevan Parkash, 489, Model Town Karnal 132001 through its Divisional Manager.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act
Present: Sh.S.S.Marothia, Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Dushyant Gera Adv. for OP No.1
Sh.S.K.Dharnia, Adv.for Op No.2
ORDER:
Sh.Rajbir Singh, President
1. Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had been the employee of Op No.1 since 24.06.1971; that for the period from 1987 to 2004 the Op No.1 deducted GSLI from the salary of complainant and further remitted to Op No.2; that the complainant was having account No.12816 and policy No.67525; that the complainant got retired from his services on 30.04.2004; that thereafter the complainant requested the Ops by for the releasing of the amount alongwith interest and benefits but to no avail rather it had been intimated to Op No.1 by Op No.2 that the policy was surrendered long back on 31.12.2017 besides closing of the scheme on 02.12.2016; that Op No.2 wrote a letter to LIC Karnal for releasing of the amount as well as for supplying the details thereof but in the reply it was intimated that the record in respect of the said amount has got destroyed; that due to inaction on the part of the Ops, the complainant has not only suffered mental agony, harassment but also suffered financial loss. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi and maintainability etc. it has been further submitted that the said scheme GSLI was not launched by replying OP rather it was implemented during the time of HSEB; that after collecting the GSLI information about the complainant from previous posting stations, the case for final withdrawal was sent to Manager, LIC Karnal on 06.08.2004 but in reply it was intimated that the policy was surrendered long back on 31.12.2017; that thereafter in another correspondences stero type reply was given the replying Op by the LIC Karnal. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the policy was surrendered on 31.12.2007 on the request of MPH (DHBVNL Fatehabad) and all the record pertaining to claim and surrender has been destructed as per Circular No.CP/CO/2000 dated 18.11.2000 which was revised vide circular No.P&GS/1344 dated 26.12.2014; that queries raised by the complainant cannot be vverified and the surrender value of the policy was paid to the master policy holder on 31.12.2007 and it was the duty of the master policy holder to make further payments to the employees and the replying Op has no concern with the same; other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Annexure 1 to Annexure 26 whereas affidavits Annexure RW1/A, Annexure R1 with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6 (OP No.1) and Annexure R2 to Annexure R7 (OP No.2).
5. We have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also perused the record placed on case file minutely.
6. After going through the material on the case file one thing is very much clear that none of the parties have led sufficient evidence to reach at any conclusion. Moreover, this Commission, after taking into consideration the rival contentions supported with the evidence and affidavits, has concluded that the nature and gravity of the present matter requires voluminous evidence. It is worthwhile to mention here that the proceedings before this Commission are summarily, therefore, keeping in view the above mentioned fact and circumstances this Commission is of the view that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable and the matter in question cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction and it requires elaborating and voluminous evidence.
7. Hence, in view of above discussed factual as-well-as legal position, we dispose off the present complaint as this Commission cannot decide the matter qua forgery and conspiracy as mentioned in the complaint as well as in FIR. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach at appropriate Court/Tribunal keeping in view of his allegations, if he so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Commission shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/forum. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC page 583. . Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Commission. Dated:05.12.2023
(K.S.Nirania) (Harisha Mehta) (Rajbir Singh) Member Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.