BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2016
Date of Institution: 23.02.2016
Date of Decision: 19.07.2016
Tarlochan Singh son of Sh.Sobha Ram, aged 90 years, resident of H.No. 258 Old, and new No.1406, Gali No.8, Hussain Pura East, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Sharifpura, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: U.K.Gaind, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Sh.R.K.Mahajan, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Tarlochan Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant got issued a FDR from Opposite Party having cover note No. 219767, Serial No.8625 bearing account No. 27842 dated 30.6.2010 for a sum of Rs.6,57,029/- initially for the period of 36 months. On 30.6.2010 the complainant got it renewed vide cover Note No.102144, Serial No. 2338/10 bearing Ledger No. 14388 and account No. 27842 dated 30.6.2010 for the further period of 15 months. The amount of interest of Rs.2,33,089/- was credited to saving account of the complainant being maintained with Opposite Party and said FDR is being renewed from time to time. Hence the complainant having hired the services of the Opposite Party for valuable consideration falls within the definition of Consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, he has right and locus standi to file the present complaint. Since the complainant was aged person, as such, he got the said FDR in his name as well as in the name of his son Kuldeep Singh and the mode of operation of the said FDR was mentioned as “Either or Survivor”. Although the said FDR was got prepared by the complainant with his own money, yet the name of Kuldeep Singh was mentioned only for future and nomination purpose only. Later on the intention of Kuldeep Singh became malafide and he started pressurizing the complainant to get the said FDR transferred in his name only and he also threatened the complainant in this regard. So, the complainant disinherited him from all his movable and immovable properties by issuing proclamation in the newspaper. The complainant also got the nomination of the said FDR in the name of his other son namely Harmohinder Pal Singh alias Harwinder Pal Singh on 22.11.2010 as nomination No. 553 and entry to that effect was also made at the back of the said FDR. However, at present the complainant only is entitled to operate or to get the amount of the said FDR released. Since December, 2011 the complainant remained out of country in California (USA) with his son Harmohinder Pal Singh alias Harwinder Pal Singh who is permanently residing there. The complainant is suffering from various diseases like High BP, Prostate Cancer, Gal Bladder Stone, PSA and Textron for which he is also getting treatment at California and his bladder has also been removed due to stone problem and he is getting the treatment at cheaper rate there while residing with his son as treatment of said diseases is very costly in India. The complainant made various requests to the Opposite Party in person and also through his son Harmohinder Pal Singh alias Harwinder Pal Singh through various e-mails and also through written requests to release the FDR amount and transfer the amount of said FDR in his saving account, but the Opposite Party is dilly dallying the matter on the one pretext and the other and continue to linger on the matter. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has prayed for grant of following reliefs:-
a) Opposite Party be directed to remove carelessness, deficiency in service on its part by way of releasing FDR having Cover Note No.102144, Serial No. 2338/10 bearing Ledger No. 14388 and Account No. 27842 for Rs.7,16,566/- alongwith interest upto date in favour of the complainant.
b) Compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant may also be granted in favour of the complainant.
c) Costs of the proceedings amounting to Rs.20,000/- and any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under law, equity and justice may also be granted in his favour.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not legally maintainable against the Opposite Party; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering Opposite Party; that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the replying Opposite Party; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and as such, he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. As a matter of fact, the real facts are that the FDR bearing No. 219767, Ledger No. 8625 bearing Account No. 27842 dated 30.6.2007 amounting to Rs.6,57,029/- was got prepared by the complainant Tarlochan Singh and one Kuldeep Singh from the Opposite Party. As such, said complainant Tarlochan Singh alongwith said Kuldeep Singh were joint holders of the said FDR. The said FDR is joint FDR having its operation as “Either or Survivor”. Said FDR was dated 3.6.2007 which was to mature on 30.6.2010. It is pertinent to mention over here that thereafter, a dispute cropped up between the joint holders of said FDR and one of the Joint Holders of said FDR namely Kuldeep Singh started moving applications to the bank not to release the said FDR to other joint holder and as such, to avoid any complication lateron, the said FDR was freezed and the payment of in the better interest of the joint holders, on the maturity of the said FDR, the said previous FDR was renewed vide FDR bearing No. 102144, bearing Ledger No. 8625 with same account No. 27842 amounting to Rs.6,57,029/- was prepared by the bank. However, the interest proceeds of said FDR were deposited in the saving account of joint holders. Thereafter, said other joint holder Kuldeep Singh again asked the bank not to release the interest even to any of the joint holders and to further renew the said FDR and as such, thereafter, neither the said FDR was renewed nor any payment in respect of said FDR was made by the bank to any of the joint holders. However, the complainant Tarlochan Singh started insisting the Opposite Party to release said FDR solely to him and the bank made him understand that since the said FDR is joint having its operation “Either or Survivor” and the further fact that the said FDR has already been freezed, as such, the Opposite Party bank is not able to make the payment of said FDR solely to him . The bank requested him to bring other joint holder of said FDR and only then the payment of the FDR shall be released. But inspite of said requests of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the present false, frivolous and baseless complaint, concealing the abovesaid material facts; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties. The other joint holder namely Kuldeep Singh is a necessary and proper party to the present complaint, but he has not been intentionally made party to the present complaint; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The present complaint involves the matter regarding settlement of title of said joint FDR between the joint holders, as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try or entertain the present complaint. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant made into the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of FDR Ex.C2, copy of another FDR Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 16.2.2016 Ex.C4, copy of letter Ex.C5, copy of PAN car of the complainant Ex.C6.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Baljit Singh Chief Manager Ex.OP1, copies of FDRs Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3, copies of letters Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP11 and closed its evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. There is no denying the facts that FDR bearing cover note No. 219767, Serial No.8625 bearing account No. 27842 dated 30.6.2010 for a sum of Rs.6,57,029/- was prepared jointly in the name of Tarlochan Singh complainant alongwith his son Kuldeep Singh. The said FDR is joint FDR having its operation as “Either or Survivor”, copy of FDR is Ex.C2 on record. FDR dated 3.6.2007 in dispute was to mature on 30.6.2010. But before that, dispute arose between Tarlochan Singh complainant and his son Kuldeep Singh regarding the operation of FDR in dispute. In order to avoid any complications, at some subsequent stage, the bank authorities were compelled to freeze the said FDR . Payment of said FDR was stopped to any of the joint holders. Since there was title dispute between the complainant Tarlochan Singh and Kuldeep Singh, this Forum, has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It is the case of the complainant that the entire money for the preparing of the FDR in dispute was paid by him from his own pocket & Kuldeep Singh did not make any contribution for the same. But the FDR had to be freezed because Kuldip Singh disputed the same. Kuldeep Singh was necessary party to the present complaint, but however, he has not been arrayed as party to the present complaint for the reasons best known to the complainant. In the absence of Kuldeep Singh, the instant complaint can not be finally/effectively disposed of in accordance with law. It is not disputed that the Consumers Forums have been set up to grant speedy disposal through summary trial, but the case in hand requires elaborate and voluminous evidence to be led by both the parties. The Forums are not meant to duplicate the civil courts, and subject the litigants to delays which have become endemic in the civil courts as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in case Trai Foods Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. 2006(2) CPC page 664. So this Forum is not the proper agency to adjudicate such type of the complicated disputes and the parties can relegate their case before the civil court.
7. Even otherwise also, the bank has every authority to freeze the disputed FDR and stop the payment when there was a dispute inter se joint holders of the FDR in dispute regarding operation and release of the FDR amount. Reliance in this connection can be had Bhagwan Dass Vs. Union of India, First Appeal No. 609 of 2012, decided on 7.4.2014 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein it has been laid down that
(i) any one of the joint holders of fixed deposit on either or survivor basis could serve notice on the bank not to allow withdrawal from the account, unless he is signatory to the withdrawal,
(ii) In such cases, the bank should not release the maturity value of deposit to the remaining account holder (s),
(iii) However, when the amounts were wrongly paid and if there were sufficient amount lying with bank in the names of (father and mother0 the account holder (s) oi whom the payment had been wrongly paid earlier, the bank can create the bankers lien to the extent of the said amount(s) as per section 171 of the Contract Act, 1972, and later would release the same only on getting instructions/ signatures from the concerned account holder(s) (son),
(iv) In view of the above, the relief claimed could not be granted.”
Ratio of this judgement is fully applicable to the facts of the present case on all its fours. As such, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate authority for the redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 19.07.2016. hrg
