Punjab

Sangrur

CC/619/2019

Vinod Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

          

                                                                         Complaint No. 619

 Instituted on:   04.12.2019 

                                                                         Decided on:      11.01.2024

Vinod Singla aged about 49 years son of Late Shri Amar Nath Singla, resident of H.No.22, Near Baba Sarwan Singh, Ward No.50, Park Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.      ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-4000051 through its Managing Director.

2.         ICICI Bank Limited,   Branch Office: Near BDO Office, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

 

For the complainant  : None.              

For the Ops             : Shri Sanjeev Goyal,  Advocate.

 

ORDER

 

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.             The brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s father namely Amar Nath Singla was having a bank account number 150801501395 with the OP no.2. The father of the complainant made three FDRs of total Rs.9,20,000/- with the OP no.2. The complainant was the nominee of all the three FDRs. On 01.01.2019 the father of the complainant died. The complainant approached the OP no.2 for releasing the payment  of above said FDRs. The OP no.2 illegally released the amount of FDRs alongwith balance of savings bank account to Geeta Rani. The complainant sent a registered letter to OP no.2 and banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh  for the illegal act of OP no.2. The OP no.2 in his reply dated 28.05.2019 admitted that they had released the amount of Rs.10,26,262.84 in faovur of Geeta Rani on 28.01.2019. The complainant had withdrawn the complaint from banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh. The complainant  has lastly prayed that the Ops may kindly directed to release the payment of abovesaid three FDRs alongwith interest and Rs.One Lac on account of mental tension and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.  

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version, taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands as an amount of Rs.10,26,262.44 has already been released to Geeta Rani ( daughter in law of deceased) who was the joint account holder with the father of complainant. Geeta Rani is the wife of complainant. The amount released as per master circular dated 1.7.2015 issued by RBI. On merits, Op no.2 received an application dated 21.01.2019  and also submitted death certificate of Amar Nath Singla. Geeta Rani was the joint  account holder and OPs released the amount to joint account holder as per clause 19.7 of the above said Master circular.  The Ops prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.             In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his  affidavit Ex.C-1 and some documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-15 and closed evidence.

4.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have produced  documents i.e  Ex.Ops/A affidavit and Ex.Ops/1 to   Ex.Ops/4  and closed evidence.  

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for OPs and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Written  arguments were filed by the complainant. Arguments of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

6.             Now, come to major controversy,  whether the complainant is liable for relief  as claimed by him in his prayer or  not?

7.             Without going into the merits of the case, from the perusal of the file as per Ex.C-4 is a Will attested by the Notary in which the complainant  is claiming as nominee of three FDRs. This  Commission has  considered opinion that neither the complainant produced all the copies of three   alleged FDRs nor impleaded  his wife namely Geeta Rani as a necessary party who  was the joint account holder with her father in law and she has already received amount of Rs.10,26,262.44 from  OPs.

8.             It is writ large on the file that the nomination did not disclose by the officials of OP no.1 in the prescribed column of the “nominee name”. As per Ex.C-12 page no.2 and Ex.C-14 on the top of the fixed/recurring deposit application cum deposit slip only mentioned  the name of the complainant in  handwritten and relationship mentioned as son. Prescribed column of nominee name is blank. It creates suspicion in the said document.

9.             Per contra it transpires from Ex.OP1/1 application form (without nomination) duly issued by the OPno.1  and embosses their stamps. However reply of OPs preliminary objections in para no.2 they specifically pleaded that an amount of Rs.10,26,262.44 has already been released to Geeta Rani . Geeta Rani is  the wife of complainant. This Commission  has the considered view that  in the present complaint there are complicated questions of facts are involved  which requires elaborative evidence for proper adjudication of the same. We are of the opinion that the present complaint cannot be adjudicated upon in summary manners as the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature. We may further in this case refer to a decision of three judges bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case  of Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Others I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) in which  Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where  complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel that  in the present case  also there are complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Commission.    

10.           Accordingly, in view of above discussion and in the light of judgement ( supra) we are of the view that in the present case also elaborate evidence involving cross examination of witnesses are required for proper adjudication to prove the case. Thus we would not like to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate court of law, in case parties wishes to prove or lead voluminous evidence and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this commission. Parties to bear their own costs.

11.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Announced.                                              

                                January 11,2024.

 

 

 

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President

  

BBS/-