MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
ORDER
25.06.2024
1. A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts of the complaint are that deceased father of the complainant is having the joint account with his real brother Sh. Hemraj with OP Bank vide account no. 10659704436. It is alleged by the complainant that in the year 2006 due to the globalization of the bank, the joint account number of the complainant’s father at the OP Bank was modified and changed into eleven digit account number due to which OP Bank negligently and without paying proper attention turned the mode of operation from Joint Operations to All Account Holders/survivor(s). It is further stated that no request was made to bank jointly by the account holders to change the mode of operation.
2. It is submitted that the father of the complainant was died due to prolonged illness on 31.07.2011. It is pertinent to mention that there were some internal family disputes prior to the death of father of the complainant due to which the OP Bank account was set on hold on dated 27.08.2011 and the complainant served the legal notice to OP Bank dated 18.08.2011 in this respect. It is further alleged by the complainant that despite direction, the OP Bank freeze only sum of Rs. 7,88,301/- instead of freezing the entire amount along with future generated interest.
3. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 27.08.2013 when he checked the account in question he found that one ATM card was issued and sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been withdrawn from the aforesaid account accumulated in the form of interest. The complainant immediately sent an email to the official of the OP and also lodged the complaint in respect to the same. It is alleged by the complainant that despite having hold on the account in question OP released a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to other joint holder, this act of OP clearly establish deficiency in service on the part of OP, hence, this complaint.
4. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its written statement wherein it is stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Sh. Hemraj as necessary and proper party since the Sh. Hemraj & Ishar Dass “Jointly” hold and operated Saving Bank A/c no. 10659704436. It is further stated that the present complaint involves complicated questions of law and fact, which cannot be decided under the summary procedure of the Consumer Forum which can only be decided through trial before the Civil Court. It is further stated that the complainant and other alleged legal heirs are denied for want of requisite heir ships certificate from the competent authority. It is further submitted that despite demand the complainant neither submitted the death certificate of the joint account holder nor the survivor ship certificate however, the amount in the account as on 27.08.2011 was set on hold as requested by complainant. The subsequent generation and credit of interest component became a source for joint holder Sh. Hemraj to withdraw the amount of Rs. 40,000/- through his ATM card.
5. It is further submitted by OP Bank that due care is always taken by the branch functionaries but sometime constraint of work load and time factor and circumstances do not help them. In the instant case there were no deliberation from the part of the functionaries. In the instant case as the account was dormant it escape the specific attention of the operating staff leading to the issuance of ATM card to other joint holder Mr. Hemraj but now the amount of Rs. 8,29,028.38/- has been set to “stop” and would be released only subject to the order from the competent court of law. It is further stated that the present complaint is abuse of the process of law and is not maintainable as per the preliminary objection raised by OP, hence be dismissed with cost.
6. Rejoinder to the WS of OP filed. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint. Sh. V.K. Jain Branch Manager of OP Bank filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP.
7. Both the parties filed their respective written arguments. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Gagan Jindal and Ms. Mayuri Chawla counsel for OP and have perused the record.
8. The sole question for adjudication in the present complaint is whether OP is deficient in providing the services to complainant. It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that he is the legal heir of Sh. Issar Dass and to support his contention he has placed on record the copy of order dated 22.09.2016 passed by Ld. ACJ, Rohini Court, Delhi vide which the succession certificate was issued in favor of the complainant. Vide email dated 27.08.2011, the complainant has requested the OP Bank to set and hold the saving account in question as the one of the joint holder i.e. his father died, taking cognizance of the email the OP set the hold on the aforesaid account, however, failed to set the hold on the entire amount in the account including the interest accrued in future. The OP Bank itself in its written statement at merit to complaint has admitted at para 7 that Sh. Hemraj Joint holder of the account had online applied in his own name for ATM card vide application dated 05.08.2013, the application was processed in the routine manner and the ATM card was issued to him on 14.08.2013 as he has mentioned saving bank account no. 10659704436 while getting issued the ATM card without disclosing the fact that the said account was a joint account. It is further admitted in the written statement that since the account was dormant, it escape the specific attention of the functionary resulting in the withdrawal of the sum of Rs. 40,000/-. It is further stated by the OP that OP Bank served notice dated 10.09.2013 to Sh. Hemraj thereby requesting it to repay/deposit the said amount of Rs. 40,000/-.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the admission made by OP Bank in respect to the escape of the attention of the functionary resulting in the withdrawal of sum of Rs. 40,000/- clearly establish the case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Holding OP guilty of deficiency in service we direct it to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him which will also include the cost of litigation.
10. OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance till realization.
11. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Announced in open Commission on 25.06.2024.
Sanjay Kumar Nipur Chandna
President Member
