Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/265/2012

Damodar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 265 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 13.03.2012 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 14.12.2016

                

Damodar Dass Chela Baba Bal Mukand Dass, resident of Saraswati Kutia, Daulatpur, PO Saran, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

Punjab National Bank, Chhachhrauli through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                          …Respondent.

 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Atul Jaiswal, Advocate for OP.

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that Baba Bal Mukand Dass resident of Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir and complainant had opened a saving bank account No.3260000100109039 with the OP Bank and operated the same as either or survivor i.e. both the depositor had a right to operate the same. The complainant is Chela of Baba Bal Mukand Dass. The Baba Bal Mukand Dass resided  at Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir situated at village Basatiawala and the complainant  also resided with Baba Bal Mukand Dass and serving in all respect being his disciple. However, lateron complainant started residing at Saraswati Kutia Daultpur and served as Mahant Pujari at Daulatpur. The said Baba Bal Mukand Dass died and being the disciple of Baba Bal Mukand Dass as well as being the Joint Holder of Bank account  and being mode of operation as either or survivor. The complainant went to OP Bank and asked the Manager of the OP Bank to allow him to operate the bank account and to withdraw the some amount, but the manager of the OP Bank refused to allow to the complainant to withdraw amount and also refused to get operated the said account. This act of the OP Bank is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the natural justice, as the OP Bank as no right to restrain the complainant to operate the bank account. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and lastly prayed for directing the OP Bank to allow the complainant to operate the account and further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as the account of Baba Bal Mukand Dass has been sealed/freezed by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Bilaspur, vide its letter dated 09.01.2009 and 23.01.2009 as there arose dispute regarding the property of Mahant Bal Mukand Dass and the Mandir Panch Mukhi Hanuman Mandir. Since, then the account of the Baba Bal Mukand Dass has been freezed and no one can operate the same till further orders of the concerned authority/SDM and on merit it has been admitted that Baba Bal Mukand Dass had opened a Bank Account along with complainant and the operation in account was either or survivor but the complainant never operated the said account in the life time of Baba Bal Mukand Dass. However, it has been denied for want of knowledge whether Shri Baba Bal Mukand Dass had died or not but the saving bank account in question has been sealed/freezed by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur. Lastly, it has been stated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of the complainant  as Annexure CX, photocopy of membership letter as Annexure C1, Photocopy of certificate  issued by the village Sarpanch as Annexure C2, photocopy of Ration Card of Baba Bal Mukand Dass as Annexure C3, photocopy of Identity Card of complainant as Annexure C4, photocopy of first page of the passbook of Punjab National Bank as Annexure C5, Certified copy of judgment/order dated 04^th January, 2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Yamuna Nagar in case title as Mandir Shri Hanumanji Maharaj and another Vs. Alleged Shri Panch Mukhi Hanuman Kalyan Samiti as Annexure C6 and C7, certified copy of compromise as Annexure C8, certified copy of High Court order dated 10.08.2010 passed in Civil Revision No.4996 of 2010 (O&M) titled as Panchmukhi Hanuman Kalyan Samiti Versus Mandir Sri Hanuman Maharaj  and another as Annexure C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, Manager, Punjab National Bank as RW/A, order issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur to the OP Bank, regarding sealing of Bank Account and Locker of Panch Mukhi Hanuman Mandir, vide memo No.258-259 dated 01.09.2009 as Annexure R1 and sealed/freezed order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur to the OP No.2 Bank vide Memo No.366-367 dated 23.01.2009 as Annexure R2, photocopy of order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Bank.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     It is not disputed that Baba Bal Mukand Dass Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir and complainant was having a saving Bank account bearing No. 3260000100109039 with the OP Bank with mode of operation either or survivor. The only plea of the complainant is that after the death of Baba Bal Mukand Dass. The OP Bank has refused to allow to the complainant to withdraw the amount and also refused to get operated the said account which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank. Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the OP Bank hotly argued at length that the bank account of the Baba Bal Mukand Dass was sealed/freezed as per order dated 09.01.2009 (Annexure R1) and subsequent order dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure R2) passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C.  by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Bilaspur as there was dispute regarding property of Baba Bal Mukand Dass and Panch Mukhi Hanuman Mandir. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the order passed by Civil Court on 04.01.2010 (Annexure C7) and Hon’ble High Court (Annexure C9) and argued that Civil Litigation has been compromised, in view of the terms of compromise.

8.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank as the Bank account of the said Baba Bal Mukand Dass and complainant was sealed/freezed by the OP Bank under the order dated 09.01.2009 (Annexure R1) and subsequent order dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure R2) passed by SDM Bilaspur under 145 Cr.P.C. etc. So there was no fault on the part of the OP Bank. Moreover, the Bank account in question was freezed by the OP Bank in pursuance of orders dated 09.01.2009 and 23.01.2009 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 13.03.2012 i.e. after a period of more than 3 years which is hopelessly time barred. As per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein limitation period has been prescribed for filing complaint, which is reproduced as under:

Section 24A. Limitation Period: The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub Section(1) a complaint may be entertained after the period of specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

            Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. 

9.                     The present case also neither any application for condonation of delay nor the reason for filing the complaint beyond prescribed time, has been explained in the complaint itself. After going through the above noted provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as well as litigation between the parties, we are of the considered view that to decide such type of matters Civil Courts is the best platform. On merit also complainant has totally failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank. Hence, In view of the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

10.                   Resultantly, complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred and has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court to redress his grievances, if any or represent his case before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur under whose orders the account was sealed or freezed. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 14.12.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER