BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 564 of 2014

Date of Institution: 28.10.2014

Date of Decision: 20-08-2015 

1. Hartejpreet Singh
2. Jaspreet Singh, both sons of S.Kulwant Singh Saini.
3. Mandeep Kaur wife of S.Kulwant Singh Saini, all residents of 1527-1529, New Golden Avenue, Amritsar.   

Complainants

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, S.S.I. Branch, The Mall, Amritsar through its Chief Manager.
2. The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, R.M.Office, Maclod Road, Opposite St. Francies School, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainants: Sh. P.S.Sethi, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.A.K.Sharma, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainants  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that a litigation regarding 5 promote cases has been pending between the parties and in this regard, five orders have been passed vide order dated 24.4.2002 by  Sh.Vijay Kumar, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar. Thereafter, the complainants preferred an appeal in the court of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and an order dated 29.9.2005 from five appeals were passed stating in clear words that a bank guarantee be furnished regarding five cases. Thereafter, a mutual settlement had been executed between the parties. Thereafter, an order dated 4.2.2014 passed by the court Sh.S.S.Jossan, ld.Aditional Civil Judge, Amritsar favouring the complainants in which attachment of property of JDs are vacated and bank guarantee given by Punjab National Bank are ordered to be released and discharged and bank guarantee bond are ordered to be returned to the JDs. So, the complainants are legally entitled to get the FDRs alongwith its upto date interest from the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties  have intentionally withheld the amount belonging to the complainants and also refused to hand over the FDRs. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to deliver the original FDRs alongwith upto date interest and also to pay future interest; to pay Rs.10 lacs  to the complainant as damages and compensation to the complainant for causing mental harassment and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable as the father of the complainants No.1 & 2 and husband of complainant No.3 Kulwant Singh Saini has filed a civil suit  for permanent injunction restraining the Opposite Party Bank from encashment of FDRs in  favour of the complainants and the suit is pending in the court of Ms.Sushma Devi, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar. The bank filed the written statement in the civil suit titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. PNB and others in which the bank has clearly mentioned that the two FDRs No. 3383 and 2551 are the ownership of the complainants. After filing written statement on behalf of the bank, Kulwant Singh Saini filed an application under order 6 rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint to add the names of complainants as defendants, which was allowed by the court on 15.11.2014 and now the case is fixed before the civil court for filing the amended plaint. Opposite Parties further submitted that only two FDRs were prepared in the shape of bank guarantee i.e. FDRs No.PR-3383 and PR-2551. As far as FDR No.PR-3222 is concerned, that was  closed by the owners Sh.Mandeep Saini and Jaspreet Singh on 20.4.2006 and new FDR No.PR-3383 was prepared on 20.4.2006 on the name of  Mandeep Saini, Jaspreet Singh and Hartejpreet Singh. The bank has not intentionally withheld the amount of the FDRs. However, it is the father of the complainants No.1 and 2 and husband of complainant No. 3 Kulwant Singh Saini who had filed a civil suit for restraining the bank to release the amount of the FDRs. There is no dispute between the bank and the complainants, however, it is a family dispute and to be resolved by them being family members. The Opposite Parties bank shall abide by the orders passed by the Hon’ble Civil Court. The complainants are not entitled to any compensation as claimed in the complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainants tendered into evidence the affidavit of Hartejpreet Singh Ex.C1, affidavit of Mandeep Kaur Ex.C2 alongwith documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C14, affidavit of Jaspreet Singh Ex.C15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. No evidence produced by the Opposite Parties despite opportunities.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. The complainants have filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties-Bank that the complainants have 3 FDRs bearing No.  PR 3383, PR 3222 and PR 2551 with the Opposite Parties-Bank, but the Opposite Parties-Bank have intentionally withheld the amount of the aforesaid FDRs. Opposite Parties-Bank are liable to release the amount of the aforesaid FDRs alongwith interest to the complainants. As such, all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties-Bank.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties-Bank is that the there are two FDRs bearing No. PR 3383 and PR 2551. FDR No. PR 3222 has already matured and against that, FDR No.PR 3383 has already been issued. So, there are only two FDRs with the Opposite Parties-Bank.
8. Perusal of the documents placed on record show that Kulwant Singh Saini father of the complainants No.1 and 2 and husband of complainant No.3 has already filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the bank from releasing the FDRs in question in favour of the complainants. In that suit, the complainants were also made party. So, the matter in dispute is already subjudice pending before the Civil Court and this fact is fully known to the complainants. Kulwant Singh Saini has also filed an application to become party in the present complaint. Opposite Parties-Banks have also produced the copy of the plaint of civil suit titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. PNB and others in which the present complaints are also party which is suit for recovery as well as permanent injunction and in that suit, the FDRs in the present complaint are also subject matter in dispute. The said suit was instituted by Kulwant Singh Saini against PNB as well as present complainants, in which subject matter in dispute in the present complaint is also subject matter in dispute. In the aforesaid suit there is dispute between complainants and their father/ husband Kulwant Singh Saini regarding the amount lying deposited in Punjab National Bank. Said suit was instituted on 28.1.2014 and is pending in the court of Ms.Sushma Devi, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar i.e. civil suit No. 425 of 2014 and this fact has also been admitted by both the parties and that suit was filed by Kulwant Singh Saini, father of complainants No.1 and 2 and husband of complainant No.3, much prior to the  filing of the present complaint. Same dispute can not be adjudicated by two judicial/ quasi judicial authorities as the civil suit has already been pending between the parties regarding the same subject matter in dispute between the same parties, which was instituted much prior to the present complaint i.e. on 28.1.2014.
9. So, we are of the opinion that this complaint is not maintainable, as such, is hereby declined. However, the complainants shall be at liberty, if they will be so entitled to file the present complaint after the decision of the aforesaid civil suit pending before the Hon’ble Civil Court. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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.

Dated: 20-08-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member