DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.129 of 11-05-2017

Decided on 31-10-2018

1.Tejinder Kaur W/o Late Gurdev Singh R/o 94/B, Srabha Nagar, Grid Road, Patiala Now R/o Manassas, USA, legal heir of deceased Gurdev Singh, through her special power of attorney Vinod Kumar S/o Hans Raj R/o # No.158, Street No.9-B, Srabha Nagar, Bhadson Road, Sidhuwal, Patiala.

2.Inder Dev Singh Sidhu S/o Gurdev Singh R/o 94/B, Srabha Nagar, Grid Road, Patiala Now R/o Manassas, USA, legal heir of deceased Gurdev Singh.

........Complainants

Versus

1.Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office: F-77, 1st floor, Main Road, Civil Lines, Bathinda, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

2.Oriental Bank of Commerce, Plot No.1-6, Adjoining CBSE Office, Sector-5, Panchkula (Haryana)-134109, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

3. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Corporate Office, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122001, through its M.D/Director/Incharge.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present:-

For the complainants: Sh.Gupreet Singh, Advocate.

For opposite parties: Sh.Rajneesh Kumar Rampal, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainants Tejinder Kaur through her special power of attorney Vinod Kumar and other (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that Gurdev Singh (since deceased) S/o Karnail Singh R/o # No. 94-B, Sarabha Nagar, Patiala purchased one FDR No.049588/1986 of Rs.50,000/- from opposite parties on 16.4.1986. This FDR was for the period from 16.4.1986 to 16.10.1992. Gurdev Singh (since deceased) settled in USA and expired on 30.5.2012. The complainants are legal heirs of deceased Gurdev Singh. They are also settled with deceased Gurdev Singh at Manassas USA. The complainant No.1 cannot make her appearance personally before this Forum. Due to this reason ,the complaint on behalf of complainant No.1 is to be filed by her special power of attorney Vinod Kumar.

3. Further pleadings of the complainants are that in the month of October 2016, they visited at Patiala from USA and came to know that Gurdev Singh had purchased one FDR from opposite parties in the year 1986. It matured on 16.10.1992, but the deceased Gurdev Singh never disclosed this fact to the complainants during his lifetime. Thereafter the complainants visited the office of opposite parties at Chak Fateh Singh Wala, District Bathinda. They came to know that the branch of opposite parties vested from Chak Fateh Singh Wala to Regional office Bathinda and all the record is also sent to the head office of opposite parties. After that, they visited the office of opposite parties and enquired about amount deposited by Gurdev Singh in the shape of FDR in the year 1986, but opposite parties refused to give them any information and told that they have no record available with them. As such, opposite parties are deficient in service. Due to this, the complainants have suffered physical and mental loss. For these sufferings, they have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. By this complaint, they have prayed for directions to opposite parties to pay Rs.1,01,250/- with interest @18% w.e.f. 16.10.2016 till realization of the actual amount in addition to Rs.10,000/- for legal expenses.

4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections regarding cause-of-action, locus-standi, maintainability of complaint, concealment of material facts.

5. It is further pleaded that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint. The parties are to examine their witnesses. They are to be cross-examined. The matter cannot be decided in summary proceedings under 'Act'. The complainants, if so advised, may approach the civil court. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The record of FDR is not available in any branch or head office of opposite parties. The holder of FDR might have approached the branch office of the bank on missing of the original FDR. As per procedure, FDR might have been encashed after getting executed indemnity bond and other relevant papers from holder, but however, since the branch from V.Chak Fateh Singh Wala was shifted to Bhucho Mandi. As such, the relevant papers regarding encashment of FDR by the holder have been misplaced in shifting of the branch.

6. It is further mentioned that at the time of issuing of FDR, the record was being maintained manually and from 10.02.2007, the entire record i.e. FDRs and accounts were computerized and made online. The details of the FDR have not been traced out while updating the manual record to computerize/online. The complainants are estopped from filing the complaint by their own acts, conduct and acquiescence. The complaint is not filed within the period of limitation. The complainants are neither consumers nor there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The complainants should have to prove that they are natural heirs of the deceased Gurdev Singh. They should have to apply for succession certificate under the provisions of law to claim amount of FDR and lastly, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and it has been filed in order to cause undue harassment and botheration to the officials of opposite parties.

7. On merits, it is admitted that as per photostat copy of FDR, Gurdev Singh deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- upto 16.10.1992 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chak Fateh Singh Wala Branch. All other averments of the complainants are denied. In further written version, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

9. In support of their claim, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinod Jindal dated 11.5.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of FDR, (Ex.C2); photocopy of death certificate, (Ex.C3); photocopy of special power of attorney, (Ex.C4); photocopies of jamabandies, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6) and submitted written arguments.

10. To rebut the claim of the complainants, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Dass dated 22.2.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of operation manual of term deposit, (Ex.OP1/3) and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainants.

12. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

13. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

14. It is admitted that Gurdev Singh deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR, which was to mature on 16.10.1992. As per complainants, Gurdev Singh died in the year 2012.

    Therefore, first point for determination is whether the complainants are legal heirs of Gurdev Singh (since deceased) or not. The complainants have produced on record copy of jamabandies, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6). Jamabandi, (Ex.C5) proves that mutation regarding inheritence of Gurdev Singh was sanctioned in the name of Tejinderjit Kaur widow and Inder Dev Singh S/o Gurdev Singh. Therefore, it is proved that the complainants are legal heirs of Gurdev Singh.

15. Now, coming to the main point. Admittedly, Gurdev Singh deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR. Original FDR was produced for inspection of opposite parties. Copy of FDR is also brought on record. The main plea of opposite parties is that the complainants or Gurdev Singh might have encashed FDR by claiming loss of original FDR. In that situation also, opposite parties were supposed to be in possession of record to prove this fact. No record has been produced by opposite parties to prove encashment of FDR. Original FDR is in possession of the complainants. This fact further corroborates the version of the complainants that they have not got FDR encashed.

    The maturity value of FDR as on 16.10.1992 was Rs.1,01,250/-. The complainants were entitled to this amount. Opposite parties have withheld this amount without any justification. Therefore, the complainants have claimed interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 16.10.2016. As opposite parties have denied to encash FDR, therefore, the complainants are also entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.1,01,250/- w.e.f. 16.10.2016 (from the date as claimed) at the rate of interest payable on saving account during this period till payment.

16. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release an amount of Rs.1,01,250/- with interest at the rate of interest admissible on saving account w.e.f. 16.10.2016 till payment.

    It is made clear that opposite parties will be at liberty to get executed any other documents, if legally so required, for release of payment.

17. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

18. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

19. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    31-10-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member