IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/95/2015.

 Date of Filing: 27.07.2015.                                                                                                                        Date of Final Order: 29.09.2016.

Complainant :  Sanyasi Das, S/O Late Deben Das, Vill. Lochanmati, P.O. L. Dangapara,

                        P.S. Hariharpara, Dist. Murshidabad Pin 742166.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Manager of United Bank of India, Swaruppur Branch, Vill.&P.O. Swaruppur,

                        P.S. Hariharpara, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742166.

                       Present:    Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya…………………….. President.                              

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

 Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 for an order to the OP to disburse the money to the complainant from the pension account of his deceased mother as nominee.

            The fact of the complainant case, in brief, is that the mother of the complaint /Shibubala Das pension holder had an account under the OP/Bank being No. 1329010206983 in which the complainant was nominee. Mother of the complainant used to draw the pension money from the said account but on 05.04.2014 she died . On the other hand some arrear amount of pension credited in the said account on 06.04.2014 and the petitioner went to draw the amount from the said account as nominee but the OP did not disburse the money to the complainant. So, the complainant filed this case for proper redress.

            The OP/Manager, United Bank of India, Swaruppur Branch entered into this case, by filing written version where he denied all the allegations. The OP stated that the complaint’s case is vague, baseless as because the complainant stated in the complaint that the amount of arrear pension reached in the account on 06.04.2014 and the OP did not disburse the money to  the complainant which is not true. The OP also stated that the complainant practicing fraud upon Bank as well as government by trying to withdraw the said money from the account after the death of his mother. Because, he should informed to the Government and the Bank regarding the death of his mother on 05.04.2014 but the complainant tried to withdraw the money showing that he is the nominee of the account. The money was credited on 13.06.2014, whereas the mother of the complainant died on 05.04.2014. So, if the complainant informed to the Government and or Bank in time, then the said amount was not credited to the Bank. For that the complaint is liable to  be rejected.

            The only point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not and or whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not.

                                                                Decision with Reasons.

            The complainant submitted some documents in support of his case. The OP also submitted one statement of Account along with written version in favour of his case.

            Perused the record, we observed that admitted position of this case is that he mother of the complainant had a pension account under the OP Bank where the complainant was the nominee. Dispute starts when complainant wants to withdraw the rest amount of that account as nominee after his mother’s death on 05.04.2014. According to the OP there was credited an amount of arrear pension in the account on 13.06.2014 and for that the complainant want to grab the money but if the complainant informed the matter to the Government and the Bank in time the said amount was not credited in the said account. But the complaint stated that the arrear amount credited in the account on 06.04.2014, so he had no scope to stop the matter. After scrutinizing the record we observed that the OP submitted one statement of the Bank, which shows that the said money was credited on 13.06.2014, so it is evident that the complaint did not given the correct date in his complaint, which is evidence that he is not in clean hand in this case.

            In addition the complainant failed to submit the legal heir   certificate from the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Berhampore Sadar, Murshidabad as requirement of the OP. So, the OP has no deficiency in service.  

            On the basis of above discussions and also consideration the documentary evidence as to disburse the amount the said amount by the OP, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the OP has no deficiency in service  and the complainant is not entitled to get relief from the Forum.

            Hence,

                                                                               Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 95/2015 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest .

            The complainant is directed to settle the matter with the help of Sub-Divisional Officer, Berhampore Sadar, Murshidabad as per Government Rules.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

        Member                                           Member                                                             President