BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 540 of 14.7.2010 

                                                Decided on:          24.8.2011

1.                 Daya Rani w/o Sh.Mangu Ram s/o Rulda Ram S/o Sadhu Ram r/o village Bathonian Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

2.                 Kuldeep Singh s/o Kehar Singh r/o village Sarikpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainants

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab National Bank, Main Bazar Rajpura, Distt. Patiala through its Manager.

2.                 Incharge, Police Post Shambhu, P.S.Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainants:    Sh.A.S.Chahal, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.H.K.Verma, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainants had their account no.040100 01092337008 maintained with op no.1 and an amount of Rs.5,63,364/- was lying in the credit of the account.

2.       One day before the filing of the complaint, the complainants had visited Punjab National Bank, Main Bazar Rajpura, i.e. op no.1 for withdrawing the amount from the aforesaid account but the manager of op no.1 refused to allow the withdrawal. When the complainants enquired the manager as to why he had not allowed them to withdraw the amount from their account, it was told that Incharge Police Post Shambhu of P.S.Sadar, Rajpura had asked him not to allow the withdrawal from the account in question. The act of the ops in not having allowed the complainants to withdraw the amount from their account is said to be illegal, null and void. Accordingly the complainants approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to op no.1 to allow the complainants to withdraw the amount from their account and further to pay them Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and mental agony experienced by them at the hands of the ops.

3.       On notice, only op no.1 appeared to contest the claim of the complainants whereas op no.2 was proceeded exparte.

4.       In the written statement filed by op no.1, it is admitted that the complainants had opened account no. 040 1000 1092 337008 with op no.1 but with a malafide intention in the matter of playing fraud with Daya Rani d/o Naresh Kumar as also op no.1.Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh r/o village Bathonia Kalan Tehsil Rajpura was having the FDRs got from op no.1 and who had appointed one Daya Rani as his nominee. Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh had died and after his death complainant no.1 Daya Rani w/o Mangu Ram impersonated the said nominee of Dev Raj and who was identified by complainant Kuldeep Singh as a Namberdar,Daya Rani d/o Naresh Kumar r/o village Bathonia Kalan is the nominee of Dev Raj. The complainants with a malafide intention impersonated Daya Rani w/o Mangu Ram as the legal nominee of Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh and accordingly opened a joint account with op no.1 and withdrew the amount of Rs.4,70,000/-.They also moved an application on 30.8.2010 for making the payment of the balance amount. An FIR no.207 dated 5.8.2010 was lodged against the complainants and other with P.S.Rajpura.It is also the plea taken up by the op that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       In support of their claim, the complainants produced in evidence,Ex.C1 the sworn affidavit of the complainant Daya Rani and the evidence of the complainants was closed by order of the Forum.

6.       On the other hand, on behalf of op no.1, its learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1/A, the sworn affidavit of Prem Lal Raghav,Manager of op no.1 alongwith the documents,Exs.R1 and R2 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

8.       It is the plea taken up by op no.1 that the complainants had opened account no. 040100 01092337008 with op no.1 in order to defraud Daya Rani D/o Naresh Kumar r/o village Bathonia Kalan Tehsil Rajpura, the nominee of Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh R/o Bathonia Kalan Tehsil Rajpura who had got the FDRs issued in her favour by the ops. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid plea taken up by op no.1, it was obligatory on the part of the complainants to show that they are entitled to the amount of the FDRs got transferred in aforesaid account No. 040100 01092337008 as would appear from the copy of the statement of account of that account produced on file by the complainants. A perusal of the aforesaid statement of account would go to show that the complainants opened the aforesaid account with op no.1 on 25.5.2010 having deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- in cash. On 27.5.2010 an amount of Rs.9,04,789/- was credited from account no. 040100MB00004194 and on the same day another amount of Rs.1,27,575/- was credited from account no.040100MB00004112. They had withdrawn Rs.20000/- on 27.5.2010, Rs.3,00,000/- on 2.6.2010 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 9.6.2010.

9.       It is not the case of the complainants that the amount of Rs.9,04,789/- and Rs.1,27,575/- was deposited by them from their own source. It appears that the complainant in league with the officials of op no.1 got the amount of the FDR of the deceased Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh transferred in their account without having complied with the legal formalities i.e. by way of obtaining the succession certificate in respect of the debt of the deceased Dev Raj S/o Sadhu Singh.

10.     It is important to note that the FIR in the matter was not lodged by op no.1 and rather FIR no.207 dated 5.8.2010 under Section 454 380 420 and 120-B IPC was lodged with P.S.Rajpura by Amar Singh S/o Bachna Ram, who as per the allegations made in the FIR, claimed himself to be the nephew(sister’s son) of the deceased Dev Raj.The FIR was lodged against present complainant Kuldeep Singh,Nabardar and one Jit Singh alleged to be the son of the sister of Daljit Singh while Mangu is alleged to be the nephew of Dev Raj and Daya Rani is said to be the wife of Mangu. It is also alleged in the FIR that the deceased Dev Singh had adopted Daya Rani the daughter of his sister during his life time but after the death of Sadju Ram, Daya Rani w/o Mangu(complainant) in collusion with Kuldeep Singh Nambardar as also the bank had withdrawn the amount of the deceased lying in the FDRs/saving account.

11.     The FIR was lodged on 5.8.2010.Daya Rani d/o Naresh Kumar had also given in writing vide application,Ex.R1 on 30.8.2010 to op no.1 with regard to the fraud committed by Daya Rani and Kuldeep Singh having withdrawn the amount from the saving account.

12.     The complainant Daya Rani in her sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, failed to disclose as to how the amount of Rs.9,04,789/- and Rs.1,27,575/- came to be credited in account 040100 01092337008.She also failed to disclose that she was ever appointed as a nominee by the deceased Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh, in the absence of which it would appear that the complainants had withdrawn the amount ofRs.20,000/- on 27.5.2010, Rs.3,00,000/- on 2.6.2010 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 9.6.2010 from the aforesaid account by way of practising a fraud and having made impersonation in respect of Daya Rani nominee of the deceased Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh and therefore, op no.1 was justified in not permitting the withdrawal of the amount from the account by the complainants. The op no.1 is a custodian of the rights of the person, who is lawfully entitled to money and the matter having been brought to the notice of op no.1 that complainant Daya Rani is not the real nominee of  Dev Raj s/o Sadhu Singh, it was just and proper in not having allowed the complainants to withdraw the money from the account. We can not treat the conduct of op no.1 in any way amounting to deficiency of service, rather it is expected of op no.1 to proceed against the complainants for recovering the amount from the complainants  to have been withdrawn by them from the account by way of fraud and impersonation. May that as it be we, do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:24.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President