BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 215 of 2015

Date of Institution: 09.04.2015

Date of Decision: 03.02.2016  

Gura Singh son of S.Santa Singh, resident of PO Dadiala Nazaran, Teh Batala, Gurdaspur-143505 Punjab. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, through its Manager, VPO Vallah, Amritsar-143501 Punjab India.
2. Dawinder Singh son of Gura Singh, R/O Village: Otthian, P.O: Vallah, District Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sumant Tuteja, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.S.K.Saini, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gura Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant is holder of Joint Saving Bank Account No. 01512011002205 alongwith his son Dawinder Singh, from the last 7 years. Complainant submitted that on 5.1.2015 and then on 15.1.2015, he visited the Opposite Party to withdraw some amount from his account and he was denied  the operation of his Joint Saving Bank Account. The complainant who is an old aged man, but fully healthy and is able to take decision of his life has been denied operation of his bank account on several occasions without any reason. Even after repeated requests to the Opposite Party and its employees, the Opposite Party No.1-Bank has denied the complainant to operate his bank account on one pretext or another.  The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 28.1.2015 to Opposite Party No.1 and after sending legal notice, the Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that Davinder Singh son of the complainant has stopped the operation  of the account individually.       Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Party No.1 to allow the complainant to operate his account with immediately effect. Litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands before this Forum. As a matter of fact, Gura Singh complainant and Davinder Singh, Opposite Party No.2 opened a Joint Saving Bank Account No. 01512011002205 on 21.5.2007. The operation of said account is ‘either or survivor’. Vide letter dated 3.4.2014, one of account holder Davinder Singh requested to stop the operation of the said Joint Saving Bank Account in question due to some dispute and same was in the knowledge of other account holder Gura Singh complainant. So, to secure the interest of each account holder of said account or to avoid misuse of amount lying in the said saving bank, none of account holder was allowed to operate the said Joint Saving Bank Account individually. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. On notice, Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that Opposite Party No.2 is real son of complainant. No doubt the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 having Joint Saving Bank Account in question and the answering Opposite Party No.2 was living  with the complainant in the same house. Opposite Party No.2 further alleges that complainant had sold some land at village: Othian and purchased some land in his own name for his sons Santokh Singh, Jasbinder Singh and daughter Jasbir Kaur. Later on complainant executed a will dated 4.2.2015 in their favour, but after selling the said property in family partition, the complainant gave the share of property to Opposite Party No.2 in the shape of cash and the Opposite Party No.2 deposited his share of Rs.25 lacs on 18.8.2007 in Joint Saving Bank Account for purchasing some plot in Amritsar City. The account book of Joint Saving Bank Account was also given to the complainant to withdraw money to fulfill the need in routine life, but the complainant started misuse of this power and  started withdrawing money from the Joint Saving Bank Account without any rhyme and reason on the instructions of other family members. That is the reason to stop the operation of the complainant to avoid the misuse of deposited money and save the share of Opposite Party No.2 which is lying with Opposite Party No.2.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4.   Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and another affidavit of complainant Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh Saluja, Senior Branch Manager Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Davinder Singh Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.Op2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.  
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant is holder of Joint Saving Bank Account No. 01512011002205 alongwith his son Davinder Singh-Opposite Party No.2 in Opposite Party No.1-Bank as per pass book Ex.C2 about 7 years back and  was being operated by the complainant. However, the complainant went to Opposite Party No.1-Bank on 5.1.2015 and thereafter on 15.1.2015 to get some money by operating his aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not allow him to operate the aforesaid account to both the parties. Complainant is an old man. The complainant sent legal notice upon Opposite Party No.1 dated 28.1.2015 Ex.C3 through registered post, postal receipt of which is Ex.C4, but even then the Opposite Party No.1 Bank did not allow him to operate the aforesaid account.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that Gura Singh complainant and Davinder Singh, Opposite Party No.2 opened an Joint Saving Bank Account No. 01512011002205 on 21.5.2007. The operation of said account is ‘either or survivor’. Vide letter dated 3.4.2014, one of account holder Davinder Singh requested to stop the operation of the said Joint Saving Bank Account in question due to some dispute which was in the knowledge of Gura Singh complainant. So, to secure the interest of each account holder of said account and to avoid misuse of amount lying in the said saving bank,  Opposite Party No.1 did not allow both the account holders to operate the said Joint Saving Bank Account  individually. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
9. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant sold some land to some persons and he also executed a will dated 4.2.2015 in favour of his  sons Santokh Singh, Jasbinder Singh and daughter Jasbir Kaur ignoring Opposite Party No.2. The complainant also gave share of his property  to Opposite Party No.2 in the shape of cash and Opposite Party No.2 deposited Rs.25 lacs in the aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account as Opposite Party No.2 wanted to purchase some plot in Amritsar City, but the complainant started misusing the aforesaid account and began to withdraw money from the aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account on the instructions of other family members. So, Opposite Party No.2 told Opposite Party No.1 Bank to stop the operation of aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account. It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 qua  the complainant. 
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant and his son Davinder Singh, Opposite Party No.2 opened Joint Saving Bank Account No. 01512011002205 in Opposite Party No.1-Bank as per pass book Ex.C2 and the complainant as well as  Opposite Party No.2 operated this account for about 7 years. However, Opposite Party No.2 had some dispute with his father i.e. complainant regarding distribution of property by the complainant to his legal heirs including Opposite Party No.2. So, vide letter dated 3.4.2014 told to  Opposite Party No.1-Bank not to allow the complainant to operate the aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account. It is admitted case of both the parties that operation of the aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account is ‘either or survivor’. Opposite Party No.1 has no right to stop either of the Joint Saving Bank Account holders from operating the aforesaid account. Opposite Party No.1 could not produce any instructions/ rules or regulation of Opposite Party No.1-Bank in this regard nor they could produce any agreement between the parties to the effect that in case of Joint Saving Bank Account, either of the party can stop the operation of the individual joint account holder. This Joint Saving Bank Account is on the basis of ‘either or survivor’. So, Opposite Party No.1 Bank was not justified in stopping the complainant from operating the aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account. The complainant is an old person and he requires money for his day to day necessity particularly to seek medical facility at this stage, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not allow the complainant to operate the aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account  which is on the basis of ‘either or survivor’.
11. Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Party No.1-Bank is certainly in deficiency of service qua the complainant as the Opposite Party No.1 did not allow the complainant who is an old senior citizen, to operate the Joint Saving Bank Account, thereby the complainant suffered harassment and mental pain.
12. Resultantly, we allow the complainant with costs and the Opposite Party No.1-Bank is directed to  allow the complainant to operate the aforesaid Joint Saving Bank Account. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay the compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Opposite Party No.1-Bank is also directed to pay the cost of  litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 03.02.2016.                                                               (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                    President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                  Member                         Member