RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 234 OF 2019
Praveen Mithal, S/o Shri P K Mithal
R/o House No.10, Laxmi Nagar
S. K. Road, Meerut
Presently Residence at Flat No.103
SIDBI Officer Apartment
0-14, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
...Complainant
Vs.
- Central Bank of India
Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021
Through Managing Director
- Central Bank of India
Zonal Office, 73, M.G. Road
Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001
Through General Manager
03.Central Bank of India
Regional Office, 1st Floor
31 Jailchungi, P.O. Victoria Park Road
Meerut-250001
Through Regional Manager
04.Central Bank of India
Branch Gandhi Ashram
3, Chetanyapuram Nauchandi Road
Meerut City, U. P.
Through Branch Manager
05.Sri Piyush Agrawal
S/o Dinesh Kumar Gupta
Flat No. 37, 1st Floor, Gali No.F-4
Vatika India Next Manesar (154)
Gurgaon, Haryana-122051.
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
For the Complainant : Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
Dated : 08-02-2019
JUDGMENT
PER MR. ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
:2:
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
Since the instant complaint is of the year 2019, I proceed to decide it on merit.
The instant complaint has been filed under Section 17 a(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant Sri Praveen Mithal against the opposite parties with the following prayer:-
- To direct the opposite party No.4 to pay the maturity amount of the TDR Nos. 3494955570, 3494955490, 3494955547, 3628588736, 3558416231 having tota principal face value of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac only) and amount lying (approx. Rs.6.00 lakh) in saving bank account with the 18% p.a. interest thereon from the date of submission of claim till date of payment to the complainant.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5 lacs compensation for causing deliberate delay.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5 lacs for the mental shock, monetary loss and physical discomfort sustained by the complainant.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.75,000/- as costs of the case.
- Any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper in favour of the complainant as in the nature and circumstances of the case.”
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant Sri Praveen Mithal alleged in his complaint that he is the nominee in the F.D.R’s as such he is entitled to file this complaint case. The complainant’s sister Smt. Neera Agarwal, W/o Late Sri Ram Gopal Agarwal was the sole proprietor of M/s Neera Trading Co. carrying on a business of trading of Palmolive oil chocolate power, chemical and essence which are used in making ICE Cream, bakery items and other products.
Sri Ram Gopal Agrawal husband of Smt. Neera Agarwal was a businessman carrying on a business of manufacturing of ice cream cones
:3:
as sole proprietor under the name and style of M/s Super Food Products. Sri Ram Gopal Agrawal died on 09-08-2015. Thereafter Smt. Neera Agarwal closed down the business of M/s Neera Training Co. by selling the stock of goods etc. and the business of M/s Super Food Products by selling the plant and machinery. She also got the insurance policy proceeds worth more than Rs.20.00 lakh after the death of her husband. Smt. Neera Agarwal and Shri Ram Gopal Agarwal were not having any ward/children.
It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that Smt. Neera Agarwal collected a sum of approx. Rupees One Crore or more by sale proceeds of the stocks, machinery, insurance proceeds, etc. and deposited the same with the opposite party Central Bank of India, Meerut in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts and in saving bank accounts. Smt. Neera Agarwal deposited Rs.80.00 lakhs with the opposite party Central Bank of India and Rs.5.00 lakh with HDFC Bank, Meerut. She was also having one saving account and one locker in the Central Bank of India, Merrut.
It has been alleged in the complaint that Smt. Neera Agarwal died on 25-04-2018 due to apparent cardiac attack in the midnight of 24-04-2019. She was died issueless without any children. Smt. Neera Agarwal had during her life time made nominee to the complainant (Praveen Mithal), Shri Piyush Agarwal (nephew) S/o Sri Dinesh Gupta (Brother of Late Ram Gopal Agarwal) and Sri Gaurav Gupta (Nephew) S/o Late Vinod Kumar in respect of aforesaid terms deposit receipts with the opposite party Central Bank of India of face value of Rs.50.00 lakh, 10 lakh and Rs.20.00 lakh respectively. She has also nominated to the complainant Praveen Mithal in her saving bank account No. 3480586549 with the opposite party Central Bank of India.
It has further been alleged in the complaint that Smt. Neera Agarwal had also executed a Will Deed dated 05-04-2018 wherein she has beside the other properties bequeathed the TDRs and also the amount lying in the saving bank account to their respective nominees. After the death of Smt. Neera Agarwal his borther-in-law had taken custody of all the original TDRs, saving banks account pass book, cheque books, locker’s key and all other property documents. Subsequent to her death, it
:4:
has come to the knowledge of the complainant that the complainant has been made nominee in the FDRs worth Rs.50.00 lakh and saving bank account with Central Bank of India. The complainant wrote letter dated 09-10-2018 to Central Bank of India whereby intimation regarding the death of Smt. Neera Agarwal and the complainant being the nominee in the said TDRs and saving bank account was given to the bank with a request to make entry of the death of Smt. Neera Agarwal in their records and not to release the amount of TDRs in favour of any person and also that complainant is not in custody of original copy of FDRs. The opposite party did not respond to the said letter. The complainant also sent the reminders and legal notice to the opposite parties for payment but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the various correspondence and request made by the complainant.
It is alleged in the complaint that being the nominee in the said TDRs the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties but the opposite parties only harass the complainant and play unfair trade practice, so the opposite party shows deficiency in service, which is against the Consumer Protection Act.
The opposite parties have filed their written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint.
It has been stated by the opposite parties in its written statement that the present complaint is legally not maintainable on the ground that the necessary parties are not impleaded in the present complaint as Sri Piyush Agarwal one of the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Neera Agarwal. The dispute is related to the subject matter of succession of Hindu legal heirs and as such present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is legally not maintainable.
It has been further stated by the opposite parties in its written statement that the counter claim had been alleged by Sri Piyush Agarwal alleged legal heirs of Smt. Neera Agarwal on the basis of registered will deed. Thus present dispute is related to succession and thus this Hon’ble Forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the present dispute. The complainant had failed to comply with the necessary formalities and requirement under the law to receive the alleged payments of Fixed Deposit Receipt. Thus the
:5:
complainant had himself negligent and thus the complaint is not maintainable.
It has been stated by the opposite parties that the complainant had failed to produce the original deposit slips in order to complete the formalities necessary required for processing of claim application. The alleged dispute in respect of non payment of fixed deposit receipt and the dispute in respect of bank locker are totally distinguish and separate and thus the locker dispute are not subject matter of present complaint. The complainant is not entitled for any relief against the bank and the present complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.
The complainant has also filed the affidavit on evidence in support of complaint.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite parties have committed mistake and deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice in providing their services as per terms, conditions of the banking policy and guidelines of RBI and IBA regarding payment to the nominee after death of actual owner of FDR holder, as a result of which the complainant has suffered huge loss and the opposite parties are liable to pay deposited amount under FDR and saving bank account alongwith interest and compensation.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has further argued that Smt. Neera Agarwal died issueless without any children. After the death of Smt. Neera Agarwal, her borther-in-law (yonger brother of her husband) took away custody of all the original TDRs, saving banks account pass book, cheque books, locker’s key and all other property documents. After the death of Smt. Neera Agarwal it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the complainant has been made nominee in TDRs worth Rs.50.00 lakh and saving bank account with the opposite party and that as per her Will the complainant was bequeathed the amount of FDRs worth Rs.50.00 lakh and saving bank account with the opposite party. The complainant wrote several letters and reminders to the opposite party to pay the amount but the opposite
:6:
party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also sent the legal notice to the opposite party.
Learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that in the case of other nominee Sri Piyush and Sri Gaurav, the opposite parties have allowed for premature encashment of the FDR in their favour while in the matter of the complainant the opposite party is neither allowed withdrawal nor given any reply of the correspondence of the complainant. This also proves malicious intention and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. The complainant always ready to fulfil/complete formalities with bank for payment of TDRs and bank account being the nominee. Thus the reliefs sought by the complainant in complaint required to be allowed by imposing cost on the opposite parties.
It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the opposite party never informed the complainant of any discrepancy in the claim form submitted by letter dated 24-12-2018, nor informed about any formalities to be completed. Asking for submission of original copy of TDRs and failure on the part of complainant in submission thereof cannot be claimed to be not adhere with any procedure. There are well settled procedure in all over the banking industries for release of amount of TDRs even on failure of submission of original TDRs.The complainant always ready to fulfil/complete formalities with bank for payment of TDRs and bank account being nominee Thus the reliefs sought by the complainant in complaint required to be allowed by imposing cost on the opposite parties. The opposite party is trying to escape from its legal responsibility by not making payment to the complainant.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the dispute is related to the subject matter of succession of Hindu legal heirs and as such the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is legally not maintainable.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that no nominee has been mentioned in the Fixed Deposit Receipt while in the Will the nominee is mentioned.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the counter claim had been alleged by Sri Piyush Agarwal
:7:
alleged legal heirs of Smt. Neera Agarwal on the basis of registered Will Deed. Thus the present dispute is related to succession and thus this Hon’ble Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide the present dispute.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant had failed to comply with the necessary formalities and requirement under the law to receive the alleged payments of Fixed Deposit Receipt. Thus the complainant had himself negligent and thus the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant had failed to produce the original deposit slips in order to complete the formalities necessary required for processing of claim application. The present complaint is also not maintainable on the ground that the alleged dispute in respect of non payment of fixed deposit receipt and the dispute in respect of bank locker are totally distinguish and separate and thus the locker dispute is not subject matter of present complaint.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has contended that no deficiency in service has been committed by the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. The present dispute is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint should have been filed before the competent court of law.
Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am in agreement with the argument of learned Counsel for the opposite party that the present dispute is related to the subject matter of succession of Hindu legal heirs and the matter of Will Deed is involved in this case, therefore, the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. The submission of learned Counsel for the opposite party appears to be justified and the grounds alleged by the complainant in his complaint are not acceptable.
In view of the aforesaid, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, the complainant who has been litigating his cause since 2019 before this Court would be at liberty to file his suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction and certainly the period of more than
:8:
three years must not come in his way in so far as his right to file the suit is concerned. The latches in this way shall have to be ignored in order to provide legal relief to the complainant as it would be in the interest of justice.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file his suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction and certainly the period of more than three years must not come in his way in so far as his right to file the suit is concerned.
Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) PRESIDENT
Pnt.
