DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs. BARASAT.
C.C Case NO. 641 /2016
Date of Filing: Date of Disposal:
14.12.2017 17.01.2018
Complainant Vs Opposite Parties
Smt. Manorama Shaw(Gupta) Punjab National Bank
W/O Sri. Gopal Shaw, Kakinara Branch
D/O Late Siddheswar Prasad Gupta P.O: Kakinara
Residing at: P.S: Jagatddal
6, Bindubashini Para, Dist: North 24 Parganas
P.O & P.S: Chandannagar, Represented by the
Dist: Hooghly General Manager.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………. President.
Sri. Siddhartha Ganguli………………………….…Member.
Smt. Silpi Majumder…………………………………Member.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Sanjay AdhikarI & Others.
Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps: Sri. Kushal Poddar.
Final Order
This order is arising out of the MA being no- 346/2017 in the C.C CaseNo-641/2017 filed by the O.P above named praying for non maintainability of the complaint case.
By filing the application the O.P stated that the instant case is not maintainable on the ground of limitation. The case is barred U/s 24A of the C.P. Act 1986 as the cause of action lastly arose on 09.01.2014 when a total amount of Rs.7,40,000/ was withdrawn from account No: 1645000100024492. The O.P stated further that the instant case is defective due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and therefore the instant case is liable to be rejected.
On the other hand the complainant by filing the w/o stated that the case is well maintainable and it does not hit by the provision of the limitation and mis-joinder and non- joinder of parties and the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Typed & Corrected by me Cont……P/2
Member
::2::
Heard both sides.
Perused the case record.
It is seen from the case record that the complainant and his father namely Siddheswar Prasad Gupta, since deceased, had open one joint savings bank account as referred above with the O.P Bank. Said Siddheswar Prasad Gupta had died on 22.11.2012. It is the allegation of the complainant that her brother, namely Anil Prasad Gupta, after the demise of their father, withdrew Rs.7, 40,000/ from the said account by making false signature of their father and the bank authority released that amount without any verification. It is stated by the complainant that she came to know about such thing on 20.05.2014 when she went to O.P Bank. It is seen from the case record that the alleged transactions took place on 08.11.2013, subsequently on 19.11.2013, 05.12.2013 and 09.01.2014.The complainant thereafter sent lawyers notice to the O.P and finally filed the case on 05.10.2016.
It is further seen from the case record that the complainant nowhere stated that she has informed the O.P Bank about the death of her father. The O.P bank stated that he has got the knowledge about such death only on 15.12.2014, when death certificate was submitted to it.
Therefore, the complainant has filed the case beyond the period of two years from the date of her knowledge. No condonation for delay filed.
Hence, the case is barred by limitation as envisaged U/s 24A of the C.P. Act,1986.
The M.A being No: 346 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.
That the C.C No: 641 of 2016 is dismissed due to barred by limitation.
Member Member President
Typed and corrected by me
Member
