Bihar

Patna

CC/326/2006

Nand Kishor Sharma, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madhya Bihar gramin Bank , and Another, - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
PATNA, BIHAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/326/2006
( Date of Filing : 04 Aug 2006 )
 
1. Nand Kishor Sharma,
S/o- Late Ramlakhan Sharma, R/o- Marwa Thana Hilsa Nalanda, Bihar,
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Madhya Bihar gramin Bank , and Another,
Chiksora, Hilsa Nalanda Bank Manager
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Dec 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 31.12.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

  1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
  1. To direct the opposite parties to return Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Thousand only ).
  2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation as well as litigation costs.
  1. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that he had opened a saving account with opposite party no. 1 i.e. Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Chiksora Bazar, Hilsa, Nalanda. He has further stated that he has deposited Rs. 28,000/- in the aforesaid account and when he came to withdraw his money then he was not allowed to withdraw the same and his passbook was kept by manager. The manager has told him that he has no money because his money had been given to other person. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party no. 1 for withdrawal of his money but his grievance was not redressed.

It appears from the Para – 6 of complaint petition that the complainant has written letter on 13.02.2006, 06.03.2006 and 22.03.2006 to opposite party no. 1 and on 22.04.2006 to opposite party no. 1 and 2. He has also alleged that during the correspondence his passbook was given to opposite party no. 3. He has also alleged that due to non withdrawal of money he took loan on interest in order to complete his treatment. He has prayed to direct the opposite party to permit him to withdraw Rs. 30,000/- besides compensation etc.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 written statement has been filed stating therein that the allegation made by the complainant against the opposite party are false and as such denied.

It has also been asserted by opposite party no. 1 that opposite party no. 2 has no concern with opposite party no. 1.

Replying the allegation made by the complainant in Para – 2 of complaint, the opposite party no. 1 has stated following fact in later part of Para – 8 of his written statement , “that the averment made in Para – 2 is totally wrong. It would not be out of place to mention here that on 12.05.2006 the complainant own brother ( full brother) Sri Manoj Kumar deposited Rs. 22,000/- in the account of the complainant after a laps of about nine years in his own handwriting ( Manoj Kumar) that prior to it he had only Rs. 294.85/- paise in his account as “ balance amount which is evidence from the statement of account of the complainant.”

It has also been asserted by opposite party no. 1 that this Forum has no jurisdiction because all correspondence between the complainant and opposite party no. 1 have been made from Feb 2006 to April 2006 in order to bring this case in ambit of litigation.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 the photocopy of saving fund ledger sheet from 05.05.89 to 09.09.2006 has been annexed in support of the contention of opposite party no. 1.

No any written statement has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite notice and the name of opposite party no. 3 stands deleted vide order dated 12.05.2010.

Heard and perused the record of this case.

It is surprising that in whole of complaint petition the complainant has not mentioned that on what dates he has approached opposite party no. 1 for withdrawal of his money. However from perusal of Para – 6 of complaint petition it transpires that he had made correspondence with opposite party no. 1 and 2 on 13.02.2006, 06.03.2006, 22.03.2006 and on 22.04.2006.

From bare perusal of the copy of extract of the ledger folio of account of the complainant, it appears that account was opened on 05.05.89 and thereafter the operation of account appears to have been done. It appears that the complainant has operated his Khata from 05.05.89 to 09.09.2003 and his last balance was 294.85/- and thereafter on 12.05.2006 after a long gap Rs. 22,000/- was deposited in his Khata. It has been asserted by opposite party no. 1 that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,000/- was deposited by one Manoj Kumar on 12.05.2006 who is the full brother of complainant.

The case of the complainant is that he has deposited Rs. 28,000/- appears to be not correct in view of the perusal of photocopy of folio of the account in question which contained the deposit and withdrawal of the complainant right from 89 to 2006.

From bare perusal of the aforesaid statement of the account in question it appears that on 09.09.2006 Rs. 22,489.85/- was in his account.

No any rejoinder or cogent evidence has been filed on behalf of complainant to prove that the statement of account annexed by opposite party no. 1 is not genuine.

In view of the aforementioned fact, we find no substance in the allegation of the complainant. However it goes without saying that the complainant has right to withdraw his money existing in his name as per policy of the bank as well as guidance of Reserve Bank of India.

For the reason stated above we direct the complainant to approach opposite party no. 1 and file a representation for redressal of his grievance within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order and if such representation is filed then the opposite party no. 1 is directed to pass appropriate order on the representation of the complainant with a reasoned order within the period of one month from the date of filing of representation failing which the opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 50/- per day for delay in passing the order.

It is made clear that if the opposite party no. 1 ( manager) finds that the complainant is entitled to withdraw his money in accordance with the policy of the Bank then the opposite party no. 1 will permit him to operate his account in accordance with law.

Accordingly this case stands disposed off in the light of aforementioned direction.

                              Member                                                                              President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.