JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Shivanna against Opposite 1 & 2 for to direct both of them to pay the amount, out of the amount of Rs. 62,465/- received by Opposite No-1 in collusion with Opposite No-2 Bank. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, complainant is the husband of the sister of one Melappa, the said Melappa and his wife Goolamma were residing in his house as they were no issues. The complainant and his wife were looking after them at their life time. Melappa died on 21-03-08 prior to it, his wife Gouramma died. At the life time of Melappa he was having account in the Opposite No-2 Bank. The amount of Rs. 6,241/- was outstanding in his account he also holding Insurance Policy amount of Rs. 50,000/- totally an amount of Rs. 62,465/- was outstanding amount in his account at his life time. After the death of Melappa Opposite No-1 Goolamma in collusion with Opposite No-2 borrowed an amount of Rs. 62,465/- from the account of Melappa. He enquired the matter with the bank authorities who are saying that Opposite No-1 is the nominee of Melappa accordingly they paid an amount of Rs. 62,465/- to Opposite No-1 Goolamma, as such she filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Party No-1 Goolamma, appeared in this case through her Advocate, filed written version by denying that the alleged dispute by the complainant is not at all consumer dispute there is no relationship in between the complainant and Opposite No-1 as a consumer and service provider, prima facie this Forum has no jurisdiction. All other allegations made by the complainant against her are specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint with cost of Rs. 5,000/- 4. Opposite Party No-2 Bank appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by denying all the allegations made by the complainant and submitted that the said Melappa had shown Smt. Goolamma Opposite No-1 as his nominee to the said account as well as insurance amount. After the death of Melappa the said amount was given to Opposite No-1 who is the nominee of deceased Melappa. Payment of the said amount to the complainant does not arise for consideration. It acted under law and these cannot be any deficiency in service and thereby prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds with heavy cost. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is entitled to receive the amount outstanding in the account of deceased Melappa in the Bank of Opposite No-2 but Opposite No-1 and 2 colluded together and made payment of entire amount of Melappa to Opposite No-1 even through he requested to Opposite No-2 to make the payment of said amount to him and thereby Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have found guilty under deficiency in their service towards him.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of one Narasanna and affidavit-evidence of one Gundappa have been filed both of them are noted as PW-2 & PW-3 respectively. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are marked. 8. On the other hand Opposite No-1 not filed any affidavit-evidence and document. Affidavit-evidence of Opposite No-2 was filed he was noted as RW-1. No documents filed. 9. On perusal of affidavit-evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and their documents and affidavit-evidence of RW-1 clearly discloses the fact that the said Melappa died on 21-03-08 vide death certificate at Ex.P-2, he was holding S.B. Account in the bank of Opposite No-2 vide Pass Book at Ex.P-1. Further it is a fact that an amount of Rs. 62,465/- was outstanding in the account of deceased Melappa at the time of his death. 10. It is a fact that Opposite No-1 Goolamma is the nominee for the said amount of Melappa as per letter at Ex.P-3. In-view of the facts and circumstances stated above, opposite No-2 Bank rightly made payment of the entire amount outstanding in the name of Melappa to Opposite No-1 who is the nominee. If really this complainant is interested in the said amount, then he can file a suit against Opposite No-1 by establishing his rights over the said amount. He cannot hesitate such matter before the Consumer Forum there is no relationship of consumer and trader or service provider in between the complainant and Opposite No-1 & 2, as such the complaint is liable for dismissal. Accordingly it is dismissed and thereby complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs accordingly we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 11. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. All the parties are directed to bear their own respective cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-08-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
