Haryana

Ambala

CC/132/2020

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan K Mundan

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	132/2020
Date of Institution	:	01/07/2020
Date of decision	:	01.06.2023

 

Manjit Kaur age about 50 years d/o Sh. Surjit Singh r/o Village Mehmoodpur Post Office Gadapur Distt. Patiala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Punjab National Bank having its Head Office 7, Bhikhaki Cama Place, New Delhi.
2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Tanduran Branch, Ambala City.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                               Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

            Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Pawan K. Mundan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                               Shri Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

                 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i) To pay Rs.55,280/- along with interest @ 18% from 15-4-2017 till realization

(ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony, torture and physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the deficiency in services.

(iv) To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

(v) Grant any other relief this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is maintaining a saving account no.01276428 with OP No.2. She had deposited Rs.22,326/- in Spectrum Fixed Deposit for a period of one year from 18-3-2005 to 18-3-2006 with OP No.2 vide receipt no.SWU152248 for one year, against which, she was to receive maturity amount of Rs. 23,521/-. On 18-3-2006 the complainant renewed the said FDR for further 24 months from 18-3-2006 to 18-3-2008 and after 24 months the complainant was entitled to receive the maturity amount of Rs.26,496/-. On 18-3-2008 the complainant again renewed FDR for further 24 months from 18-3-2008 to 18-3-2010 and after 24 months the complainant was entitled to receive the maturity amount of Rs.31,350/. On 16-10-2010 the complainant again renewed her FDR for further 36 months from 16-10-2010 to 16-10-2013 and after 36 months the complainant was entitled to receive the maturity amount of Rs.40,433/- On 3-2-2014 the complainant again renewed her FDR for further 36 months from 3-2-2014 to 3-2-2017 and after 36 months the complainant was entitled to receive the maturity amount of Rs.55,280/-. Thereafter, the complainant visited OP No.2 on 15-4-2017 and apprised him to pay the maturity amount of above said Fixed Deposit Receipt and requested him to transfer the maturity amount of Rs.55,280/- in her saving account bearing no.01276428. OP No.2 took signature of the complainant to that effect on some documents and assured her that the maturity amount of above said Fixed Deposit Receipt will be transferred in her saving account. Believing on the words of OP No.2, the complainant went to her house. On 23-4-2018 the complainant visited OP No.2 for depositing the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- in another Fixed Deposit and when she got her bank passbook updated with necessary entries, she was shocked to know that maturity amount of Fixed Deposit Receipt-. SWU152248 of Rs.55,280/- was not transferred in her saving account despite the assurance given by the OP No.2. The complainant immediately made a complaint to OP No.2 in this regard but despite assurance, nothing was done in the matter.   Left with no alternative, the complainant served notice dated 25-3-2020 through e-mails and by hand to OP No.2 to pay or transfer Rs.55,280/- in her account but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action arose to the complainant to file this complaint; the present complainant is barred by Law of Limitation; the complainant is not consumer, as the said FDR does not belong to her; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and have concealed true and material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the OPs have already disbursed the alleged Fixed Deposit Receipt in the account of Manjit Kaur as per her request to whom the same belongs, as per the record of the Bank. The FDR produced, does not belong to the complainant and as per the record maintained with Office of OPs, the said FDR has been already paid to Manjit Kaur to whom it belongs. The OPs have not issued the alleged FDR to the complainant. Rather the FDR in question does not belong to complainant and the complainant has filed the present false complaint taking the undue benefit of same name as mentioned in the FDR. The said FDR is matured FDR and the funds has already been credited to the account of the beneficiary. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs and special costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Manager/Authorized Signatory, Punjab National Bank, Tanduran Bazar Ambala City as Annexure OP-W1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/4 and closed evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint, submitted that by not making payment of the FDR in question, despite request having been made by the complainant, the OPs are deficient in providing service.  
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections raised their written version submitted that the FDR produced by the complainant does not belong to the complainant and as per the record maintained with Office of OPs the said FDR belong to another Manjeet Kaur and the OPs have already paid the amount of the said FDR to Manjeet Kaur to whom it Belongs.
8.           It may be stated here that perusal of record and  also from the arguments of the contesting parties, it is coming out that they are leveling allegations against each other i.e. the complainant is saying that the matured amount of FDR, Annexure C-2 has not been honoured to her till date, whereas, on the other hand, OPs while placing reliance on two statement of accounts, bearing account nos.0015003113899509 and 0015000100276428, Annexure OP-1/1 and OP1/2 and also copy of FDR with customer ID No.450106813, Annexure OP-1/4 are also alleging that the FDR amount stood paid to Manjeet Kaur, to which the said FDR belonged and that the FDR produced by the complainant does not belong to the complainant. However, the documents tendered by the parties are not sufficient to come to any definite conclusion. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view, to come to any definite conclusion in the matter, it will need voluminous evidences and witnesses of all the persons involved in the transaction in question, which cannot be done before this Commission in summary proceedings.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRAI Foods Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors., III (2012) CPJ 17 (SC),  under similar circumstance has also observed:

"6.  The only question to be decided is, when should this jurisdiction be exercised by the Commission.  In our view the Commission should address itself to the quantity of the claim, the nature of the claim, the nature of the evidence which would be required to be submitted both in respect of the claim and the damages suffered and the nature of the legal issues before deciding that the matter ought to be decided by the Civil Courts in the regular course. It is not disputed that the Consumer Forum has been set up to grant speedy remedy.  The Consumer Forums have been given the responsibility of achieving this object.  They were not meant to duplicate the Civil Court, and subject the litigants to delays which have become endemic in the Civil Courts.

7.  Although the reason given in the impugned order of the Commission for referring the present matter to the Civil Court is cryptic, we have been through the records filed before us and are satisfied that the Commission's decision was correct.  There is no doubt having regard to the nature of the claim, the large amount of damages claimed, and the extensive inquiry into the evidence which would be necessary in order to resolve the disputes between the parties that this is not a matter to be decided summarily at all"

9.                    Since, this complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, as such, voluminous evidence would be required to reach to any conclusion and the same is not possible before this Commission where proceedings are essentially summary in nature.  Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission.  However, complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate civil court, if so desires and may seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the time spent before this Commission. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 01.06.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President