DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 54/2015
Date of Institution : 19.03.2015
Date of Decision : 24.08.2015
Bachan Kaur Sandhu widow of Sh. Arjun Singh resident of Village Tuggal, Police Station Sudhaar, District Ludhiana, Presently residing at 107-B, 3110, 33rd Street, West, Faskatoon, SK S7L 6K4 (Canada).
…Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Sudhaar, PIN Code 141104, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch Barnala, District Barnala, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. GP Singh counsel for the complainant
Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Bachan Kaur (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against State Bank of Patiala Branch Sudhaar District Ludhiana opposite party No. 1 and State Bank of Patiala Branch Barnala opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the son of the complainant namely Angrej Singh son of Arjun Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 25.11.2011 at Ludhiana-Barnala, GT road, Near Village Amla Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Barnala. The legal heirs of said Angrej Singh filed a MACT case for compensation. The claim was allowed and the legal heirs of Angrej Singh including the complainant were awarded the compensation by the Tribunal Barnala vide award dated 31.5.2012. The New India Assurance Company deposited the amount of the said award to the tune of Rs. 3,87,284/- and out of the said amount, DRO (Deposit Repayment Order) No. 157 dated 20.3.2013 amounting to Rs. 37,728/- was issued in favour of the complainant by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the said DRO on 21.3.2013 in her bank Account No. 65161068519 lying at State Bank of Patiala Branch Sudhaar opposite party No. 1 for taking payment of the said amount by way of submitting the voucher and took the receipt of the same from the opposite party No. 1. Then the said DRO was dispatched by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 for realization and crediting the said amount in the account of the complainant. The said DRO was received by the opposite party No. 2 at Barnala on 16.7.2013 vide No. 120. It is further pleaded that after receipt of the said DRO by the opposite party No. 2 the same was required to be verified by opposite party No. 2 from District Treasury Office, Barnala. However, the same was not got verified by opposite party No. 2 from District Treasury Office, Barnala rather it was retained by opposite party No. 2 for a long period and then it was sent back to opposite party No. 1 without realizing any amount due to which the said amount has not been credited in the said bank account of the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 returned the said DRO to the complainant.
3. It is alleged that the complainant being of old age and illiterate lady requested the opposite parties many times to get realize her amount of DRO and to credit the same in her account but the opposite parties did not turn up to redress her grievance. Hence the said act/omission amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To realize and to credit the amount of Rs. 37,728/- alongwith interest in her account.
2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing physical pain, mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as expenses of litigation.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 filed written statement taking legal objections interalia on the ground of locus standi, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, frivolous complaint, non joinder of necessary parties and improper verification. On merits, it is pleaded that the said DRO was deposited by one Prabhjot Singh on behalf of the complainant. Then it was dispatched for collection to opposite party No. 2. However the opposite party No. 2 returned the said DRO to opposite party No. 1 after mentioning endorsement “Payees Endorsement Require”, an objection raised by the Treasury Office, Barnala. After receiving the original DRO from the opposite party No. 2, opposite party No. 1 immediately informed to the complainant but the complainant collected the original DRO through one Prabhjot Singh from the bank premises of the opposite party No. 1. The said Prabhjot Singh assured the opposite party No. 1 that he will submit the same within few days after completion of the objection. It is further alleged that the complainant herself is a negligent person as the complainant handed over the said DRO on 15.7.2013 through said Prabhjot Singh and the same was immediately dispatched to Barnala Branch for collection on 15.7.2013. The opposite party No. 2 sent the said DRO to the office of District Treasury Office Barnala for collection on 16.7.2013. However the same was also returned by the District Treasury Office Barnala after leveling objection that the DRO is out of order and the same was again received by Prabhjot Singh on behalf of the complainant. It is also submitted that the officials of the bank requested the said Prabhjot Singh to submit the DRO for collection after revalidation from the concerned MACT, Barnala but the complainant and the said Prabhjot Singh instead of re-validate the DRO from MACT, Barnala filed the present complaint on the basis of wrong facts. They have denied any negligence on their part. They have also denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
5. Opposite party No. 2 also filed a separate written statement taking legal objections interalia on the ground of locus standi, frivolous complaint, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law and improper verification. On merits, it is submitted that the DRO in question was received by the answering opposite party and same was returned by the District Treasury Office, Barnala after leveling objection “Payees Endorsement Require” firstly and the opposite party No. 2 immediately returned the same to opposite party No. 1 alongwith copy of memo. The complainant again sent the original DRO after removing the said objection through opposite party No. 1 on 15.7.2013 and opposite party No. 2 received the same on 16.7.2013 and on the same day, send the same to the District Treasury Office, Barnala for the collection but the District Treasury Office, Barnala returned the original DRO after leveling the objection that DRO is lapsed. The opposite party No. 2 returned the same to the opposite party No. 1 on the same day. They have also denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Baljit Kaur special power of attorney of complainant Bachan Kaur Sandhu Ex.C-1, copy of special power of attorney Ex.C-2, copies of DRO Ex.C-3, copy of receipt Ex.C-4, affidavit of Gurmail Singh Nambardar Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered affidavit of Dalip Mahajan Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Ved Parkash Bansal Ex.OP-2, copy of register Ex.OP-3, copy of memo Ex.OP-4, copy of letter dated 16.7.2013 Ex.OP-5, copy of letter dated 15.7.2013 Ex.OP-6, copy of register Ex.OP-7, copy of voucher Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is relevant to determine whether the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper party i.e. District Treasury Office, Barnala.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has specifically taken the legal objection that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper party. In the written statement filed by the opposite parties it is clearly mentioned that after receiving the DRO in question from the complainant the same was sent to the District Treasury Office, Barnala who returned the same with the objection “Payees Endorsement Require”. Perusal of the record further shows that the opposite party immediately sent the same and the complainant was informed immediately about this and the complainant collected the original DRO through one Prabhjot Singh from the bank premises. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the complainant assured the bank that he would resubmit the DRO after completion of the objection within few days. However the complainant presented the said DRO again after removing the said objection through opposite party No. 1 on 15.7.2013 and opposite party No. 2 received the same on 16.7.2013 and on the same day sent the same to the District Treasury Office, Barnala for collection. It is also the case of the opposite parties that District Treasury Office, Barnala returned the original DRO after leveling the objection that DRO is lapsed and the same was again received by Prabhjot Singh on behalf of the complainant and thereafter the complainant or the said Prabhjot Singh never presented the same to the bank. Moreover, the officials of the bank requested the said Prabhjot Singh to submit the DRO for collection after revalidation from the concerned MACT, Barnala and the complainant instead of re-validating the DRO from MACT, Barnala filed the present complaint.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the opposite parties are at negligence. However, the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that the delay was caused by the opposite parties for getting the said DRO passed from the District Treasury Office, Barnala. The opposite parties have taken a specific stand and have also given specific dates showing the sending of the said DRO to the District Treasury Office, Barnala and the specific objections raised by the District Treasury Office, Barnala. In the absence of any cogent evidence qua delay in submitting the DRO to the District Treasury Office, Barnala by the opposite parties it cannot be held that the opposite parties are negligent.
12. Moreover it is contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the District Treasury Office, Barnala is a necessary party and without impleading them this Forum cannot arrived at correct decision. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The stand of the opposite parties is that they have sent the DRO immediately for collection to the District Treasury Office, Barnala and there is no delay on their part.
13. We are of the opinion that in such circumstances impleadment of District Treasury Office, Barnala is necessary for determining the delay whether it caused by the opposite parties or by the District Treasury Office, Barnala or by the complainant. This view finds support from the law laid down in UCO Bank Versus Santosh Kumar Ray reported in II (2015) CPJ-263 (NC).
14. As a result of above discussion the present complaint is not maintainable and same is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint after impleading the District Treasury Office, Barnala as a necessary party if she so advised as per law. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
24th Day of August 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
