This Revision Petition by the Complainant under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) is directed against order, dated 5.12.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur in FA/12/368.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the order, dated 31.3.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, dismissing Complaint No.422/2011, with liberty to the petitioner to approach an appropriate Court for resolution of the dispute in relation to the amount in question.

          Briefly stated, the facts, material for disposal of this Revision Petition, are that the Petitioner/complainant had a joint Savings Bank account with her brother, Shri Madhukar Sudarshan Shrifale (Trifale), in the Bank of Maharashtra, Warud, District Amravati Branch, Respondent No.5 herein.  The account had operating instructions as “either or survivor”.  A sum of Rs.5,64,445/- was deposited in the account, which was stated to be the amount of compensation, received from the Government, for acquisition of land.  Unfortunately, Madhukar Sudarshan Shrifale expired on 19.12.2010.  On his demise, the Petitioner requested the Bank to transfer the amount, lying credited in the said account to a Savings Bank account in her account in another Branch of the same Bank.  The request was not acceded to by Respondent No.5, as according to the Bank they had received a letter from the wife of the said Madhukar Sudarshan Shrifale, instructing them not to deal with the said account, as there was some dispute regarding the share of the claimants in the amount lying in the said joint account.  It seems that Petitioner had lodged some complaint with the Bank’s Ombudsman, as it is stated that she received a letter from office of Banking Ombudsman (Maharashtra and Goa), informing her that the operation of the said joint account had been put on hold, as there is dispute involved in respect of her legitimate claim to receive the balance amount.  The Petitioner was advised to approach any other Forum for redressal of her grievance, if so advised.

          Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Complaint before the District Forum, inter alia, praying for a direction to the Bank to transfer the said amount along with interest to her another account, with compensation for the physical and mental harassment caused to her by the Bank.  The complaint was resisted by the Bank and its functionaries, who had been impleaded as parties.  On consideration of the material available on record, as noted above, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint.  The District Forum also observed that, in the circumstances, the Legal Heirs of the deceased joint account-holder, should have been made a party in the Complaint, which the Petitioner failed to do.

          Being dissatisfied, the Petitioner preferred Appeal before the State Commission.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the order passed by the District Forum, observing thus :

“On perusal of the fax letter dated 2/1/2011 sent by the complainant informing the Opponent to stop payment of the cheque dated 3/1/2011 of Rs.564,000/- issued by her in the name of Smt.Meera Triphale till further notice, and the letters issued by the Opponents dated 18/3/2011, 5/4/2011, 15/4/2011 it is obvious that there is a dispute in respect of the operation of the joint S/B account bearing No.68002537516 as the complainant Smt.Nirmala Kale and Smt.Meera Trifale, widow of the joint account holder Madhukar both have issued instructions to the Opponent Bank to stop operations. We also perused the letter dated 15/6/2011 issued by the office of the Banking Ombudsman (Maharashtra & Goa) C/o Reserve Bank of India addressed to the complainant informing her that in view of the request submitted by Mrs.Meera Madhukar Triphale alongwith other legal heirs, bank put on hold operations in the account till further instructions. The said letter also makes reference of the reply letter dated 29.4.2011 sent by the Opponents in response to the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opponent before the Banking Ombudsman. We also perused the said letter dated 29/4/2011 in reference to the complaint of Smt.Nirmala Kale where it is categorically stated while admitting that the S/B account No.68002537516 was opened on 11/11/2010 jointly by one Shri.Madhukar Sudarshan Trifale & 2) Smt.Nirmala Wasudeo Kale with operation “either/ survivor”. On 3/1/2011, they received a fax message from Mrs.Nirmala Kale instructing the Opponent Bank to stop payment of cheque amount Rs.5,64,000/- issued by her in the name of Meera Trifale till further notice. On 4/1/2011 the Opponent Bank received another fax followed by letter from Smt.Meera Madhukar Trifale stating that Shri.Madhukar Trifale expired on 19/12/2010 and that amount deposited in the saving account pertains to compensation received for agricultural land acquired by Government and to stop operations in the said account till further instructions as they are the legal heirs of the deceased joint account holder. Therefore, the Bank put on hold all types of transactions on the account. The reply further mentions that since the matter was under dispute, it was referred to the Regional Office, Amravati for Legal opinion and accordingly complainant was informed by letter dated 15/4/2011 and the Regional Office by letter dated 28/3/2011 had informed the opponent Bank to continue hold on the banking operations of the account. Therefore, the Opponent Bank had informed the Complainant and the Widow of the Joint Account Holder by letter dated 5/4/2011 accordingly.”

          Hence the present Revision Petition.

          Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is no substance in the Revision Petition.  From the afore-extracted observations by the State Commission, it is manifest that immediately after the death of Sh.Madhukar Shrifale, the joint-holder, some dispute regarding distribution of the amount of compensation arose.  It is also evident from the fact that on 03/01/2011, about two weeks from the date of death of Madhukar, the Petitioner faxed a message to the Bank instructing them to stop payment of the cheque issued by her in favour of the widow of Madhukar.  The very next day, the widow also instructed the Bank to stop all transactons in the joint account, as there was dispute about distribution of the compensation between the Petitioner and the legal heirs of Madhukar.  We are of the opinion that in the light of the aforestated factual scenario, it cannot be held that there was some deficiency in rendering services on the part of the Bank in not transferring the balance amount lying in the joint account to another account of the Petitioner.

          We do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference in our Revisional Jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.