Punjab

Moga

CC/17/11

Babita - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab and Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Goyal

03 May 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                                 CC No. 11 of 2017

                                                                                                Instituted on: 19.01.2017

                                                                                               Decided on: 03.05.2017

 

Babita aged about 35 years wd/o Joginder Singh Gill, R/o 1339/79, Shaheed Karnail Singh Nagar, Phase-3, Pakhowal Road, District Ludhiana.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Punjab and Sind Bank, Chamber Road, Moga, District Moga, through its Manager.

 

2.       Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Chamber Road, Moga. 

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Ajay Gulati, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties. 

.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Punjab and Sind Bank, Chamber Road, Moga, District Moga, through its Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay the due amount of FDR  i.e. Rs.6 lacs vide account no.0017140000785 issued in favour of complainant and Joginder Singh (since deceased) s/o Babu Singh operated on 'either of survivor' basis alongwith future interest upto date. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and deficiency in services and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Babita wd/o Joginder Singh and Joginder Singh were regular customer of the opposite parties for the last couple of years and on dated 03.10.2012. The complainant alongwith her husband i.e. Late Sh. Joginder Singh deposited Rs.6 lacs in the form of FDR vide account no.0017140000785 with opposite party bank and the same was issued on 'either of survivor' basis and the maturity date of the same was 03.10.2013. Unfortunately Joginder Singh husband of the complainant died on 02.10.2014 and the factum of death of Joginder Singh was brought into the notice of opposite parties and copy of death certificate was also submitted with them. After the death of her husband, the complainant has become exclusive owner of the FDR, because the same was issued on either or survivor basis. The complainant requested opposite parties number of times and also made written applications to them for payment of due amount of FDR, but they out rightly refused to make the payment on account of civil suit being subjudice in civil court filed by Gurpreet Singh and Surjeet Kaur ( i.e. son and mother of Joginder Singh). The opposite parties had even filed written statement in the said suit, in which, it has been specifically admitted by opposite parties that it is survivor (i.e. the complainant) who is entitled to get said amount of FDR. In the said civil suit an application for interim stay filed by Gurpreet Singh restraining payment of amount of FDR to complainant was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. The complainant approached opposite party bank a number of times for the release of said amount of FDR, but they refused to do the same. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.10.2016 to opposite parties for the release of said amount, which was duly received by them and they gave reply to the said notice. Due to the act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment as well as financial loss. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The matter in dispute has already been pending in the Hon'ble Civil Court and is still subjudice between the parties and thus the present complaint is not maintainable and cannot be entertained by this Forum; that no deficient services have been rendered by opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. On merits, it is admitted correct upto the extent that Joginder Singh has died, but as to whether the complainant is entitled for the amount of FDR in question is concerned, the dispute related to it has already been pending in the Hon'ble Civil Court of Mrs. Shilpa Verma, Additional Civil Judge (SD) Moga and the matter is still subjudice and the complainant herself is fully aware about the pendency of Civil Suits filed against her questioning her entitlement over pendency of civil suits titled as "Gurpreet Singh versus Babita etc" and "Surjit Kaur versus Punjab & Sind Bank etc" which are to the knowledge of opposite parties are pending in the court of Mrs.Shilpa Verma, ACJ (SD) Moga, the amount of FDR could not be paid to the complainant. The allegations of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties are false, frivolous and baseless. The opposite parties have been under legal obligation and constraint due to pendency of above said civil litigation to retain the amount in question intact and safe. Both the civil suits have been filed by legal heirs of Late Joginder Singh i.e. joint account holder of FDR in question, against the complainant questioning her entitlement over the said FDR and the complainant herself neither filed any civil suit or any counter claim in the pending civil suits nor she has obtained any order or direction from Hon'ble Civil Court to pay the amount of FDR to her during pendency of said civil suits. Therefore, in the event of matter being subjudice and in the absence of any appropriate direction the opposite parties are unable to pay the amount of FDR to the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. P.K. Verma, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Moga Ex.OPs-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs-2 to Ex.OPs-19 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                The case of the complainant is that on 03.10.2012, she alongwith her husband Joginder Singh (since deceased) got deposited Rs.6 lacs with opposite party bank in the shape of FDR. The said FDR account was to be operated on either or survivor basis. Unfortunately Joginder Singh husband of the complainant died on 02.10.2014. After the death of her husband, the complainant has become exclusive owner of said FDR, as the same was issued on either or survivor basis. After the death of Joginder Singh being a sole survivor account holder, requested the opposite parties a number of times and also made written request to them for payment of amount of FDR, but they refused to make payment on account of civil suit being subjudice in civil court filed by Gurpreet Singh  and Surjeet Kaur i.e. son and mother of Joginder Singh respectively, which is pending in the court. The opposite parties in that suit specifically admitted that being a survivor, the complainant is solely entitled to get the amount of FDR. Moreover, in that civil suit, an application for interim injunction restraining the opposite parties to make the payment of FDR to complainant filed by Gurpreet Singh son of Joginder Singh has already been dismissed by the civil court. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

8.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties admitted that the complainant alongwith her husband deposited Rs.6 lacs in the shape of FDR on either or survivor basis. They further admitted that after the death of Joginder Singh, complainant approached them and requested them for the payment of FDR to her. Ld. counsel for opposite parties submitted that Gurpreet Singh and Surjeet Kaur i.e. son and mother of Joginder Singh  respectively has filed civil suit before the civil court, Moga. In that suit the FDR in question is also subject matter and that suit is still pending in civil court. As the matter is subjudice in the court, they cannot make the payment of FDR to complainant. However, they admitted that in case of account operated on the basis of either or survivor, in case of death of one joint account holder, the only survivor account holder is entitled for the amount of the FDR. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that being a sole survivor account holder the complainant is  only entitled for the amount of FDR, which is also admitted by the opposite parties in their written reply filed before the civil court. He argued that the other legal heirs of Joginder Singh are not entitled for the amount of FDR. The suit filed by Gurpreet Singh has no bearing on the right of complainant regarding the amount of FDR. In the civil suit the court has not restrained the opposite parties for making payment of FDR to complainant. Moreover, in the suit titled as Gurpreet Singh Vs Babita filed by Gurpreet Singh s/o Joginder Singh, in which, opposite party bank is also party and filed their written reply, whereas they specifically admitted that in case of amount operated on either of survivor basis, only surviving account holder is entitled to the amount lying in the account and no other person can claim this amount. In that suit Gurpreet Singh also filed an application for interim injunction under 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC restraining the bank not to make the payment of FDR  in question to complainant. The said application has already been dismissed by that court vide its order dated 09.11.2015. Whereas the Hon'ble Court held that FDR shows that same has been issued in the name of Joginder Singh and Babita on 'either or survivor' basis. Prima facie the said copy shows that on account of death of Joginder Singh defendant no.1 i.e. Babita complainant in the present complaint is entitled to claim such amount. No where the name of Gurpreet Singh finds mention and no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff Gurpreet Singh and dismissed that application. Copy of order dated 09.11.2015 is Ex.C-5. Now, the opposite party bank cannot deny the payment of amount of FDR to complainant on account of pendency of civil suit.

9.                From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the FDR in question is on either or survivor basis and in case of death of one account holder, the surviving account holder is entitled for the amount of FDR. Now, regarding the pendency of civil suit, there is no order to stop payment of FDR and application filed by Gurpreet Singh for restraining the bank from payment of FDR to complainant during the pendency of civil suit has already been dismissed by the civil court. So, in these circumstances, the opposite parties bank cannot withhold the payment of FDR with them. Hence the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed and opposite parties are directed to make the payment of maturity value of FDR in question alongwith further interest as per rules to the complainant on furnishing of indemnity bond with bank by the complainant to the satisfaction of the bank. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings against opposite parties under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be sent to parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 03.05.2017

                                                  (Bhupinder Kaur)                               (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                        Member                                     President

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                 Dissenting view         

 

Dt. 22.05.2017

 

                   It is clear from the evidence Ex.OPs-1 affidavit of Sh. P.K. Verma, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Railway Road, Moga, District Moga that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The matter in dispute is already pending in the Civil Court and is still subjudice between the parties and thus the present complaint is not maintainable and cannot be entertained by this Forum.        Ex.OPs-14 is copy of civil case pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Moga (Duty) title as Surjit Kaur Vs Punjab & Sind Bank. I am of the view that no merit under findings is required to be given impending civil litigation.

 

                                                                             (Bhupinder Kaur)

                                                                                  Member

 

 

Dt. 24.05.2017

 

                   The arguments in this case was heard on 03.05.2017 and the present complaint was allowed, but later on worthy member Smt. Bhupinder Kaur given dissenting view against the order of President for allowing the present complaint and given her dissenting note on dt. 22.05.2017. The another member Smt.Vinod Bala was not present on 03.05.2017. As per Consumer Protection Act every complaint can be decided with the majority view. So, in these circumstances, the present complaint be referred to member Smt. Vinod Bala for verdict.

 

                                                                             (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                                                  President

 

 

                                                       Dissenting view           

 

Dt. 08.06.2017

 

                   It is clear from the evidence Ex.OPs-1 affidavit of Sh. P.K. Verma, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Railway Road, Moga, District Moga that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The matter in dispute is already pending in the Civil Court and is still subjudice between the parties and thus the present complaint is not maintainable and cannot be entertained by this Forum.  Ex.OPs-14 is copy of civil case pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Moga (Duty) title as Surjit Kaur Vs Punjab & Sind Bank. The relevants citations are as under:-

1)  Oswal Fine Arts Vs H.M.T. Madras 1991(I) CPJ 330 of National Commission, New Delhi, 2) V.P. Somashekhar Vs The Secretary, APMC Yard, 2001 CCJ page 492, 3) Haryana State Electricity Board Vs Jai Dev Aggarwal 1990 (1) NCLT page 111 of Haryana State Commission, 4) Hanuman Prasad Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1 (1994) CPJ of Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, 5) Kalyanpur Cold Storage Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others  (2) 2015 CPJ page 117 of Hon'ble National Commission.

                   In view of the above, I am of the view that no merit under findings is required to be given impending civil litigation.

 

 

                                                                                      (Vinod Bala)

                                                                                          Member