Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/160/2015

Pran Khosla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Standard Chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Sharma

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	160 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	03.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	06.10.2015

 

Pran Khosla son of Late Sh.Piare Lal Khosla, aged 86 years, resident of House No.226, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, 10 E, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
3. Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, 10 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
4. CEO, Standard Chartered Bank, Head Office, Crescenzo Building, C-38/39, G Block, Bandra Kurla, Complex- Bandra East, Mumbai.

              .... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:                 JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                        MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:        Sh.Ashok Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

           

            Smt. Santosh Thapar who died on 12.07.2006, was an account holder with the respondents Bank. In the month of December 2004, she had to her credit, Rs.15 lacs lying in a term deposit and an amount of Rs.3,47,006.34Ps. in the saving account, in Connaught Place, New Delhi Branch of the Opposite Parties. The complainant claimed that he is real brother of the deceased. It is stated that before her death, Smt. Santosh Thapar made a request by writing a letter, in the month of January 2005, to transfer her account/money lying deposited with the bank, to their Chandigarh Bank Branch.  Reiterating her request, she again wrote letters dated 21.02.2006 and 25.03.2006, however, nothing was done. She died on 12.07.2006. Her death was reported to Connaught Place Branch of the Bank, on 12.09.2006. By writing letters on 18.10.2006 (Annexure C-4),  20.12.2006 (Annexure C-5) and 22.12.2006 (Annexure C-6) necessary documents i.e. death certificate etc. were supplied to the Bank by the complainant, with a prayer that her sister (Smt. Santosh Thapar) had nominated him to operate the account and let the money be released in his favour. It is his case that despite submitting above document(s), the Opposite Parties failed to take action.

2.       It is further case of the complainant that vide letter dated 06.01.2007 (Annexure C-10), he was advised to get succession certificate and action can be taken only post receipt of the same. It is positive case of the complainant that, in the month of January 2007, when he went to Branch of the Bank to sort out the matter, he was told that one Mr.Harsh Chopra, had put up his claim for release of the amount, in dispute, being nominee of the deceased and as such the case has been referred to legal cell. The complainant has put on record, copy of the Bank's note dated 25.01.2007 (Annexure C-12) stating as above. Thereafter, he wrote letters, asking for release of the amount, but of no avail. He also met one Mr.G.D. Rastogi, and told him that as Mr.Harsh Chopra, is not in the line of succession, he cannot claim the amount.
3.       It is on record that vide letter dated 03.02.2007 (Annexure C-13 colly.), the Opposite Parties had intimated the complainant that one more name has been updated as nominee by deceased Smt.Santosh Thapar. It is case of the complainant that succession certificate was granted in the month of May 2012. Thereafter, he took up the matter with the authorities, however nothing was done. It is his case that money deposited by the deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar, has wrongly been released to somebody else. It was known to the bank that the second nominee was not in the line of succession, as such, there was no question of releasing money to him.  Legal notice was sent which failed to get any response from the Opposite Parties. Compelled under the circumstances above, the instant consumer complaint was filed by the complainant.
4.       Upon notice, the Opposite Parties have filed joint reply, controverting all the allegations. It is stated by them that saving bank account, in the name of deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar and her husband was opened in the month of November 1980. In the year 1998, after death of her husband, the said bank account was transferred in the name of deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar. The account holder deposited an amount of Rs.15 lacs, in Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), on 09.12.2004. After her death, the bank received a legal notice on 21.08.2007, at the instance of one Mr.Harsh Chopra, intimating that he is nominee of the deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar, and let her account(s) be freezed, as he is in the process of obtaining succession certificate.  
5.       It is specific case of the Opposite Parties that on 17.04.2004, Nomination Form DA1 was signed by the account holder, nominating Mr.Harsh Chopra, as her nominee. The said Form was brought on record, as Annexure R-5. On 18.06.2012, Mr.Harsh Chopra, raised a claim qua saving account, being nominee of the deceased, for release of money lying in the same. The matter was referred to the Legal Department. Affidavit of Mr.Harsh Chopra, was obtained and on completion of all the formalities, amount was released in his favour. Receipt showing transfer of Rs.24,90,511.23 Ps. to the account of Mr.Harsh Chopra,  is placed on record as Annexure R-8. It is positive case of the Opposite Parties that when succession certificate was produced by the complainant, the account already stood settled with the nominee namely Mr.Harsh Chopra. It was also alleged that Mr.Harsh Chopra, was not made a party by the complainant, when applying for grant of succession certificate.
6.       Both the parties led evidence by filing their affidavits and also brought on record numerous documents.
7.       We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
8.       At the time of arguments, by making reference to certain documents on record, it was vehemently contended by Counsel for the complainant that a fraud has been committed by the Bank, with the complainant. It was stated that if Mr.Harsh Chopra, was shown as a nominee in the record, why the Opposite Parties/Bank did not intimate the complainant, in the first instance. Despite various letters written, above fact was not disclosed. Rather, it was stated that he should get a succession certificate to facilitate release of the amount, in question, in his favour. By making reference to document i.e. nomination Form DA1 (Annexure R-5), it is stated that the same was forged and fabricated.
9.       The above contention has been seriously disputed by the Opposite Parties.
10.       After hearing the arguments of Counsel for the parties, this Commission is not inclined to interfere at the  instance  of the complainant. The factum of Mr.Harsh Chopra, as nominee of the deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar, was to the notice of the complainant. It is apparent on reading of the document dated 25.01.2007 (Annexure C-12), which was given to the complainant by the Opposite Parties, when he met one Sh. G.D. Rastogi, to raise his claim. The subsequent correspondence between the parties also talks of above nominee of deceased. Very surprisingly when claiming succession certificate, said Mr.Harsh Chopra, was not added as a party. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of nomination form, the entire amount was released in favour of Mr.Harsh Chopra. This fact was to the notice of the complainant. Despite that even in this complaint, he was not impleaded as a party.
11.       The Counsel for the complainant has made an attempt to say that nomination form is a fabricated document. It is stated by him that if there was any nominee, other than the complainant, it was duty of the Opposite Parties to intimate him immediately, when information was given regarding death of the account holder, Smt. Santosh Thapar. It is further stated that Mr.Harsh Chopra, was known to one Bank employee, with whose connivance, the amount was got transferred in his account. To say so, reference was made to a writing at page 77 of the paper book. Besides as above, reference has also been made to various letters, written and received by the complainant, to show that money was released in a fraudulent manner, in favour of Mr.Harsh Chopra. To controvert the above said averment, the Opposite Parties have brought on record, various documents. It is stated that nomination was changed by deceased Smt. Santosh Thapar, before her death, on 17.04.2004. It is not in dispute that Bank's note dated 25.01.2007 mentioning that Mr.Harsh Chopra, was nominee of the deceased, was to the notice of the complainant. However, no attempt was made to get an interim order passed by any competent Court.
12.       The complainant has made an attempt to fortify his plea of fraud, by making reference to various documents, on record. Above plea has been denied by the Opposite Parties. It is their claim that the amount, in dispute, was disbursed in favour of Mr. Harsh Chopra, as per nomination made by the deceased. It is case of the complainant that the alleged nomination was not in line of succession, as such, the amount should not have been released in his favour.
13.       We feel that the entire facts are such that for adjudication thereof, elaborate evidence has to be recorded and dealt with. The proceedings before this Consumer Fora are summary in nature and such an exercise is not possible before this Commission. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held  that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the  same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.’s case (supra), there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information, incorporated  in the proposal form. Two copies of the proposal form were produced. In one copy of the proposal form, the insured stated that she was working as a teacher, whereas, in the other copy of the proposal form, it was stated that she was a housewife.  The insured, thus, on the basis of such information, obtained the Policy. The insured died. When the claim was filed by her legal representatives, the same was repudiated, on the ground of a false disclosure of information, by the insured, in the proposal form. The District Forum accepted the complaint, which was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased insured.  The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, on the ground that there was dispute of disclosure made, in the proposal form, and the information given and, as such, the facts being disputed and of complicated nature, the complainant should take appropriate proceedings for establishing his claim, and seeking the reliefs in the Court of competent Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, Revision Petition, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes   Redressal Commission, which accepted the same, holding that the information disclosed by the insured, had no nexus with her death and, as such, restored the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents.  It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of forgery/fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.’s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
14.       In view of the above judgments, it is specifically held that the proceedings before this Commission are summary in nature. When factual position is required to be established by leading evidence and documents, it is desirable to refer the parties to a competent Court. In the present case, allegations levelled and rebutted by both the parties, leads to complicated questions and need thorough examination and calling of various documents. The complicated questions of fact and law cannot be gone into, in summary proceedings, before this Commission.
15.       At this stage, this Commission is not expressing its opinion, qua pleas taken by both the parties. However, it is concluded that it will be desirable for both the parties, to avail any other remedy for redressal of their grievance, as per the law.
16.       With the above observations, this complaint stands disposed of, with the liberty aforesaid, being not maintainable.
17.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18.       The concerned record/file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

06.10.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

 

Rg.