Haryana

Karnal

CC/433/2023

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Vohra

03 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.433 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.01.08.2023

                                                          Date of Decision:03.08.2023

 

1.     Jaspal Singh son of Shri Mahender Singh;

2.     Rajbir Kaur wife of Shri Jaspal Singh, both residents of Village Chakda, District Karnal,

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Village Rasina, District Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                    …..Opposite party

 

      Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Shri Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Mrs.Rekha Chaudhary………Member

 

 Present: Shri Pardeep Vohra, counsel for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that Lakhwinder Kaur wife of Shri Manjeet Singh, was having one FDR of Rs.7,00,000/- bearing FDR No.82443100001465 dated 01.08.2015 with the OP and the said FDR was for one year. In the said FDR, Smt.Lakhwinder Kaur made the complainants as nominee. The said FDR was not released as such, the same was automatically renewed. Lakhwinder Kaur was expired on 25.02.2021 and after her death, complainants being nominee are entitled to the amount of the said FDR. One Paramjeet Kaur has filed a Civil Suit at Karnal with regard to another three FDRs and in that suit the complainants and the OP are already party. There is no hindrance in releasing the benefits/ amount of the said FDR in favour of complainant and the complainant have approached the OP several times to release the said FDR but they are not releasing the same. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

2.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.

3.             A careful perusal of the file reveals that in the complaint, the  complainants have specifically mentioned that a Civil Suit with regard to another three FDRs is already pending in Civil Courts at Karnal. Furthermore, the complainants have not placed any document on record that they are nominee in the said FDR. From the pleadings of the complainants, it seems that they have dispute with Paramjeet Kaur who has filed Civil Suit in Civil Court at Karnal and the complainants have not made her party in the present complaint. In order to prove the dispute between Paramjeet Kaur and the complainants and to prove the fact that whether the complainants are nominee in the FDR in dispute, several witnesses shall have to be examined and cross examined. The facts which the complainant wants to prove, cannot be adjudicated in a summary process and without leading detailed examination/ cross examination of the witnesses as in the complaint complicated issues are to be decided. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil/Criminal Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties and in order to prove the issues involved in the present complaint, Court can cross examine the same. In this regard, we have placed reliance upon the observations made in case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

5.             Keeping in view the law laid down in the above said authorities and in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without going into the merits of the complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil/Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desires. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 03.08.2023  

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member