Delhi

New Delhi

TC/885/2012

Prakash Wadhwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.TC/885/12                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Prakash Wadhwa,

Flat no.90, Prasad Nagar-I (MIG),

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

Bank of Baroda,

Aliganj Branch,

Lucknow

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

 

The complaint was received or its transfer from District Forum in Lucknow, on the orders of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.   The case of deficiency as made out in the complaint is that complaint with his deceased sister had a joint saving bank account no.19020100004745. The account was either or survivor. The sister named Kumari Saroj Wadhwa died on 25.12.10. After her death on 11.10.11, complainant remained sole surviving account holder. He visited the bank and obtained a statement of account showing balance of Rs.31,820.00/-.

The complainant alleges that on getting the passbook on 11.01.10, he learnt that there was withdrawal of Rs.12 lakhs from the account by a cheque no.560852 dated 30.11.10. He prays that OP should be directed to produce the original cheque for getting it investigation by some independent agency. The complainant has stated that her sister for last 3 years was a physically challenged lady of 77 years, who had returned from BSN2 and for her needs a lady Veena Sachdeva had been employed who with passage of time control of all cheuqes and pass books and started withdrawing amount from various banks. It is stated that to avoid misuse he visited bank with request, to freeze the account but OP bank wanted a joint request. It is stated that on his persisted request the account was frozen on 25.11.10, but was defrozen on 27.11.10, and on 30.11.10 the money of Rs.12 lakhs was debited. He alleged that cheque no.060852 dated 30.11.10 was a forged cheque, and OP bank refused problem. This is the background for filing the complaint on 27.07.12.

The OP bank in its reply has stated that on 25.11.10, the sister of complainant was alive and therefore OP bank refused to freeze the account having regard to Banking Law and Practice which disallow freezing of joint account on request of one account holder and referred to case of Anumati Vs. PNB 2004(8) SCC 498, in support. It further stated that any complaint of forgery of cheque should have been made when the cheque was encashed as she was alive then, for criminal prosecution.

We have considered the rival case and find force in the contention of the OP that, it acted as per law and practice of Baking. In case the complainant was watchful brother, he should have firstly left with bank to confirm for sister any cheque issued by her, and secondly should have got  a complaint from sister, while she was alive, to police alleging forging and disputing signatures and alleging negligence of bank. The subsequent awareness of complainant provides no cause of action for deficiency in this case, after death of her sister. The Consumer Court cannot direct police investigation. The complaint is dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on 21.04.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER