Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/145/2023

SHYAM LALL SINGHI THROUGH ATTORNEY ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

NITESH SINGHI

19 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	145 of 2023
Date of Institution	13.04.2023
Date of Decision	19.09.2024

Sh. Shyam Lall Singhi son of Late Shri Amir Chand Singhi, Resident of H.No.B-5, 51, Sector-5, Parwanoo, Solan, at present R/o L. Herv GS VEJ 150D, 3035, Drammen, Norway, through his attorney Shri Anil Kumar.

II^nd Address:

Sh. Shyam Lall Singhi, resident of House No.10-131, Amaltas Enclave, Near Metro, Jalandhar Byepass, Bhattian, Ludhiana, through his attorney Shri Anil Kumar son of Shri Kallo, Resident of D.D. Public School, Amaltas Enclave, Bhattian, Ludhiana.

.…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      State Bank of India, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2]      The Managing Director, State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, M.C. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

 

3]      Tripta Rani Singhi C/o S. C. Marwaha (Chief Regional Office, SBI), Sector-35D, Chandigarh.

 

                                                ...Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:- 

 

Ms. Priya Singhi, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Rajiv Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Respondent No.3 exparte vide order dated 04.09.2023.

 

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

              The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant – Sh. Shyam Lall Singhi (appellant herein), against order dated 16.02.2023, vide which, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), has dismissed his Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2019.

1.            The case of the appellant/complainant before the Ld. District Commission was that he alongwith his wife namely Tripta Rani Singhi (opposite party No.3) were having joint account with opposite party No.1 - Bank.  One FDR bearing Account No.10286173007 was prepared in their joint name for Rs.10,000/-. Later on, the officials of opposite parties No.1 & 2 changed the name of the account holder of the said FDR by deleting the name of the complainant and his wife remained the holder of the FDR. Later on, the complainant and his wife Tripta Rani Singhi were divorced. The complainant sent original FDR along with necessary document to opposite parties No.1 & 2 – Bank through registered post and also visited their office with request to transfer the said FDR to his account as his wife opposite party No.3 had given in writing dated 30.9.2014 that the said FDR may be transferred in the name of complainant and that the complainant shall have every right on the same and she would not claim this FDR. The grievance of the complainant was that opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to transfer the said FDR in his name despite several visits and requests followed by legal notice dated 22.12.2018 and reminder dated 25.7.2019, which led to the filing of the consumer complaint before the Ld. District Commission.
2.            On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing their reply, wherein they specifically denied that they deleted the name of the complainant and changed the name of the holder of said FDR as alleged. It was stated that the FDR was prepared in the name of opposite party No.3 only from the very beginning and the same is activate till date in her name. It was denied that opposite party No.3 had given in writing to opposite parties No.1 & 2 for transfer of said FDR to the account of complainant.
3. Opposite party No.3 - Tripta Rani Singhi never turned up before the Ld. District Commission below despite being served through publication and as such, she was proceeded exparte on 20.10.2020. 
4.             Before us also, respondent No.3/opposite party No.3 did not appear despite duly served through registered post on 10.07.2023 and as such, she was proceeded exparte by this Commission vide order dated 04.09.2024.
5.            The order the Ld. District Commission has been assailed on the ground that the Ld. District Commission committed a grave error on facts as well as on law, by rejecting the complaint of the appellant and further failed to consider the application moved by the appellant for directing respondents No.1 & 2 to produce the original documents relating to the FDR in question alongwith account opening form on the court file and also to supply the copy of the same to the appellant but the said application was never decided by the Ld. District Commission. It has further been stated that when respondent No.3/opposite party No.3 had not denied contents of the complaint and preferred not to contest the complaint, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back so that the complaint can be decided a fresh on merits.    
6.  On the other hand, on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 – Bank, it has been argued that the Ld. District Commission rightly dismissed the consumer complaint of the appellant after appreciating the documentary evidence on record as the FDR in question was initially made in the name of respondent No.3 – Smt. Tripta Rani Singhi only and not in the joint name of the appellant and respondent No.3, as alleged. Prayer for dismissal of the appeal has been made.
7.             Before going into the merits of the case, it may be stated here that there is a delay of 55 days as per the appellant and 62 days as per the office of this Commission in filing the appeal, for condonation whereof, a Miscellaneous Application bearing No.496 of 2023 has been moved alongwith the appeal. The application has been contested by respondents No.1 & 2 by way of filing their reply to the same. However, after going through the contents of the application, which is supported by an affidavit and in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the appellant has shown rational reason for the delay, which has been caused due to bonafide reasons. Therefore, for the reasons given in the application which is supported by an affidavit and finding sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. MA/496/2023 stands disposed of accordingly.
8.            Now coming to the merits of the case, after giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the parties, the impugned order, the documentary evidence on record and the written arguments, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The documentary evidence submitted by the appellant before the Ld. District Commission, specifically the document Annexure C-1 (at Page 13), unequivocally proved that the FDR was registered in the name of Smt. Tripta Rani Singhi only. Moreover, Smt. Tripta Rani Singhi, being Opposite Party No.3, did not appear before the Ld. District Commission to corroborate the appellant’s version. Her absence further weakened the appellant’s claim. During the pendency of this appeal, it is worth noting that, pursuant to the directions issued to Respondents No.1 and No.2 (the Bank) on 15.11.2023, their Counsel submitted a statement of the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) account in question, covering the period from 19.04.2003 to 30.06.2021, as Annexure A/1. A detailed examination of this document clearly indicates that the FDR was registered solely in the name of Respondent No.3, Smt. Tripta Rani Singhi, the wife of the appellant, from its inception. This contradicts the appellant's claim that the FDR was initially made jointly in both his and his wife’s names. Thus, the appellant’s assertion regarding the joint ownership of the FDR does not hold merit based on the evidence on record. It is a settled principle of law that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts a fact. In this case, the appellant had the onus to demonstrate, through credible and admissible evidence, his entitlement to the FDR, which he failed to discharge. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission, dismissing the consumer complaint of the appellant, which is legal, just and fair.
9.          For the reasons recorded above, this appeal bearing, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10.          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
11.          File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

19.09.2024.

                           [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                               

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad