Haryana

Ambala

CC/9/2021

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Kamlesh Gupta

26 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case No.	:	09 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	01.01.2021
Date of decision	:	26.04.2024

Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Jagdish Chander resident of H.No. 26/6, Race Corse Colony, Opposite S.D College, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Manager State Bank of India Sadar Bazar Opposite HDFC Bank, Near Gita Gopal Chowk, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.
2. Manager Bank of Maharastra Opposite Kashmir Medical Hall Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.
3. Smt. Rani Devi wife of Sh. Jagdish Chander resident of C/O Mangat Ram H.No.109, Street No. 2, behind Luxmi Cinema, Yamuna Nagar.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Kamlesh Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Satinder Garg, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Shri S.K. Mehta, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

                   Shri Radhey Shyam, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.               

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’)  praying for issuance of directions to them to restore the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in the bank of OP No.1 along with interest; to pay compensation Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and also Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that a joint account was opened by the complainant and his mother in the bank of OP No. No. 1 vide account No.37678312915 on 01.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. Due to some reasons, the complainant moved an application in the bank of  OP No.1 to stop the payment and the same was stopped by the  OP No.1. However, inspite of direction to stop of payment, OP No.1 transferred the payment in the another account number of OP No.3 in the bank of OP No.2 illegally and in unjustified manner in account No. 60353601059 on 29.02.2020 by RTGS. When this fact came in the notice of the complainant, he moved application in the bank of the OP No.1 on 22.07.2020 and the same was also received by the OP No.1 but no reply was given to the complainant. However, the officials of OP No.1 only verbally replied that it was a mistake on its part and that it has been intimated to the bank of OP No.2 to return the said amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in the account of complainant and OP No.3 but it has not been done so by  OP No.2. OP No.2 also did not give any response in the matter. On 22.07.2020 the complainant sent a letter to the zonal office of the OP No. 1 but no reply was given by it. On 05.11.2020 a letter was also sent to the OP No.1 but no reply given to the complainant. A legal notice dated 22.11.2020 was also sent to OPs No.1 to 3 but no reply has been given by them. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is baseless and a flagrant abuse of the process of law to harass and extract money from the OPs; the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive to injure the reputation of OP No.1; that complaint has been filed by concealing material facts and by concocting false allegations etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant alongwith his mother has a joint saving bank account no. 37678312915 with OP No.1. The complainant vide his application requested the bank to stop payment in the above said account. On his request the OP No.1 stopped the said account. Thereafter, his mother requested the bank to remove the stoppage of payment in the said account. As the above said account is a joint account in the name of complainant and his mother and there was no stay from any authority therefore, bank is bound to treat both of them equally. As such, on request of the complainant, OP No.1 stopped payment in the said account and thereafter, on request of his mother it removed the stoppage of payment in the above said account. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is legally not maintainable; the complainant has not come to this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.3 issued a letter to OP No.2 in which, she stated that the amount belongs to her and in case any legal action taken by anybody, she herself will be liable for all consequences. OP No.2 is working as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; the present complaint is nothing but an abuse to the process of law and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed; the complainant is guilty of suppression of true and material facts and has concealed true and material facts and as such is not entitled to any relief; the present complaint has been filed on false allegations and false and forged documents etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.3 is a old aged lady and is earning her livelihood by doing labour work. The complainant who is son of the OP No.3 mounted pressure upon the OP No.3 by saying that the ancestral house no.9789, Teli Mandi is an old construction and requires repair and on their such suggestion, the house was got repaired by OP No.3 by spending more than Rs. 5 lakhs. Thereafter the complainant and his wife asked the OP No.3 to sell the said house and to give their share. The complainant also wrongly asked to give Rs.5 lakhs alleging that the amount has been spent by him on the repair, whereas he took the amount from OP No.3 for the repair. Due to their such pressure, OP No.3 had to sell her house for Rs. 17 lakhs and at that time, the complainant snatched a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from OP No.3 and an amount of Rs. 7,76,000/- was deposited in the bank, State Bank of India. The complainant also took Rs. 24,000/- by saying the expenses on the preparation of papers. The son of OP No.3-Vijay cleverly got opened the said account jointly by mentioning his name also in the bank account. The complainant took OP No.3 to the bank 2/3 times and got withdrawn the money from the bank. OP No.3 smells foul on the part of the complainant, got opened an account in Bank of Maharashtra and transferred an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in the said account, leaving an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the account in State Bank of India. The complainant has also withdrawn an amount of Rs.39,000/- from the State Bank of India, which shows the dishonest intention of the complainant. The complainant also moved an application in the Maharashtra Bank for seizing the account in connivance with the bank officials wrongly and illegally. When OP No.3 reprimanded the complainant as to why he is playing such mischievous acts and taking the money of the OP No.3 in an illegal manner, he quarreled with OP No.3 and inflicted injuries upon her. OP No.3 has danger to her life from the complainant as the complainant is in the habit of doing wrongs. The complainant is living in a rented accommodation. Due to such ill acts of the complainant, OP No.3 also moved an application to the CM window and police. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sarika Gupta, Accountant of OP-1, State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.2 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OP No.2 has been closed by the order of this Commission on 03.01.2023. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Smt. Rani Devi wife of late Shri Jagdish Chander, residing in rental house in Ganesh Vihar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.
7.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
8.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the fact that the complainant moved an application in the bank of OP No.1 to stop the payment and the same was stopped by it, yet, thereafter, OP No.1 transferred the payment in the another account number of OP No.3 in the bank of OP No.2, illegally and in unjustified manner in account number No.60353601059 on 29.02.2020 by RTGS. Officials of the OP No.1 told the complainant that Bank of OP No.1 intimated to the Bank of OP No.2, to return the said amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, in the account of the complainant and OP No.3 but it did not do so.  
9.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that the complainant and his mother, OP No.3 have opened a joint account with the OP No.1 with mode of operation as EITHER OR SURVIVOR. Complainant vide his application requested the bank to stop payment in the above said account. On his request the OP No.1 stopped the payment from the said account and thereafter, OP No.3 requested the bank to remove the stoppage of payment in the said account. He further submitted that as the above said account is a joint account in the name of complainant and OP No.3 with the OP No.1 with mode of operation as EITHER OR SURVIVOR and there was no stay from any authority therefore, bank is bound to treat both of them equally.
10.           Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that OP No.3 issued a letter to OP No.2 in which, she stated that the amount belongs to her and in case any legal action taken by anybody, she herself will be liable for all consequences. He further submitted that OP No.2 is working as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.
11.           Learned counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that the complainant who is son of the OP No.3 mounted pressure upon the OP No.3 by saying that the ancestral house no. 9789, Teli Mandi is an old construction and requires repair and on their such suggestion, the house was got repaired by OP No.3 by spending more than Rs. 5 lakhs. He further submitted that thereafter the complainant and her wife asked the OP No.3 to sell the said house and to give their share by selling the house. He further submitted that the complainant also wrongly asked to give Rs. 5 lakhs alleging that the amount has been spent by him on the repair, whereas he took the amount from OP No.3 for the repair. He further submitted that due to their such pressure, OP No.3 had to sell her house for Rs. 17 lakhs and at that time, the complainant snatched a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from OP No.3 and an amount of Rs. 7,76,000/- was deposited in the bank, State Bank of India. He further submitted that the complainant also took Rs. 24,000/- by saying the expenses on the preparation of papers and the son of OP No.3-Vijay cleverly got opened the said account jointly by mentioning his name also in the bank account. He further submitted that the complainant took OP No.3  to the bank 2/3 times and got withdrawn the money from the bank. He further submitted that OP No.3 smells foul on the part of the complainant, got opened an account in Bank of Maharashtra and transferred an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- in the said account, leaving an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the account in State Bank of India. He further submitted that the complainant has also withdrawn an amount of Rs. 39,000/- from the State Bank of India, which shows the dishonest intention of the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant also moved an application in the Maharashtra Bank for seizing the account in connivance with the bank officials wrongly and illegally.
12.           It is the own case of the complainant that he was having a joint account with his mother/OP No.3 in the OP No.1-Bank, in which, an amount of Rs.6.50 lacs was kept deposited. It is also coming out from the details of Bank Pass Book, Annexure C-9 that the said joint account was opened with mode of operation as - EITHER OR SURVIVOR. The plea of the OP No.1 is that the complainant and his mother, OP No.3 were having a joint account with mode of operation as EITHER OR SURVIVOR, therefore, it was legally bound to follow the instructions given by any of the joint account holder qua the account in question. In the first instance, the complainant had given directions to OP No.1 to stop the payment in the account in question and subsequent thereto, OP No.3-Rani Devi, joint holder of the account in question, gave directions to OP No.1-Bank to transfer the amount of Rs.6.50 lacs in account No.60353601059 on 29.02.2020 by RTGS. OP No.1 followed the instructions of both the joint holders, as such, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing service, especially when there was no stay from any competent authority. It may be stated here that in the case of GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. Versus BUNIYADEVI CHAUHAN & ANR., decided on 03.01.2022,  the Hon’ble National Commission passed an order dated 03.01.2022, relevant part of that order is copied below:-

“……10.    On the basis of information supplied on 01.10.2015, the counsel for respondent-1 argued that even if the cheque book had been issued to Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan prior to 30.08.2004, i.e. joining of the complainant as joint account holder, the bank ought to have either withdrawn the cheque or not permitted withdrawal through cheque. The information relied upon by the counsel for respondent-1 in this respect is quoted below:-

“So far as procedure for accounts of illiterate person is concern, as per IBA policy, the bank may at its discretion open deposit accounts other than Current Account of illiterate person. The account of such person may be opened provided he/she calls on the bank personally along with a witness who is known to both the depositor and the bank. Normally no cheque book facility is provided for such Saving Bank Account. At the time of withdrawal/repayment of deposit amount and/or interest, the account holder shall affix his/her thumb impression or mark in the presence of the authorised officer, who should verify the identity of the person. The Bank will explain the need for proper care and safe keeping of the pass-book etc. given to the account holder. The Bank official shall explain the terms and conditions governing the account to the illiterate/blind person.”

 11.      This reply is related to a separate new account of an illiterate/blind person and not for an illiterate person joining in the existing account of the literate person. On the basis of this reply, it cannot be said that the bank ought to have withdrawn the cheque book already issued to Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan or stopped payment on its basis.

12.    Saving Bank Account No.26589 was converted as a joint account in the names of Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan and Smt. Buniyadevi Chauhan, with operational instructions of “Either or Survivor” w.e.f. 30.08.2004 as such the bank could not stop payment of the cheque or withdrawal form signed by Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan. It cannot be said that by making payment on the basis of cheques/withdrawal form signed by Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan, the bank has committed deficiency in service. So far as Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan, is concerned, he did not challenge signing of the cheques of withdrawal form. Findings of State Commission in this respect of withdrawal of money by Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan, is not based upon any rules/instruction of Indian Banking Association or Reserve Bank of India.

O R D E R

          In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of State Commission dated 14.09.2016, passed in Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2008 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. If the appellants have deposited any amount before this Commission or before State Commission, it may be returned to the appellants, along with accrued benefits.……..”

13.             Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration and the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the above referred case, in no manner, OPs can be held deficient in providing service, especially when there was no stay from any competent authority. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 26.04.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President