New Complaint No.226 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 26.10.2023.
Old Complaint No: 261 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 11.06.2018.
Date of order:11.12.2023.
Smt. Reena Bhandari widow of Manjit Singh Son of Smt. Baljit Kaur now wife of Sanjay Bhandari, resident of Flat A-1 Block 71 Sector 6, Parwanoo (H.P).
….......Complainant.
VERSUS
Branch Manager State Bank of Patiala Now India Branch Hanuman Chowk, Gurdaspur.
….Opposite party.
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Saksham Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Pushkar Nanda, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Smt. Reena Bhandari, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against State Bank of India (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was known as Reena Walia and was married to Manjit Singh who was son of Smt. Baljit Kaur. It is pleaded that Manjit Singh had expired 24.02.1991 before the death of Baljit Kaur as Smt. Baljit Kaur expired on 29.12.2012 and she was having saving accounts with the opposite party bearing A/c No’s. 65048364288 and 55109024443 and Baljit Kaur has expired without leaving any will and complainant is also one of the legal heir of Smt. Baljit Kaur. Now the complainant has married with Sanjay Bhandari and living at the given address. It is further pleaded that other legal heirs namely Ajit Kaur, Gulshanjit Kaur, Jagjit Kaur, Amarjit Singh and Harmanjit Singh having connivance with the officials of the opposite party have got their share of Rs.5,45,940/- each from the opposite party, where as the complainant was not released her share of equal amount by the opposite party in spite of the fact that she had made a request to release her share but the opposite party have not released the same in her favour although her share is lying with the opposite party, which clearly proves that she is entitled to the same. It is further pleaded that as the complainant is also one of the legal heirs of her mother-in-Law whose amount has been released by the opposite party to other legal heirs by detaining her share wrongly whereas otherwise the opposite party is liable to release her also. It is further pleaded that the complainant has made several requests with the opposite party to release her share lying with it orally as well as by writing, but with no result. A complaint was also made to the opposite party and reply was received that no payment has been made to any one whereas the payment has been made. It is further pleaded that as the officials of the opposite party have failed to release her share of the amount lying with it and thus the such act of the opposite party amounts to otherwise harassment of the complainant but in order to avoid further litigation, a legal notice was also served upon the opposite party with the advice to release her amount lying deposited in the bank from the account of Smt. Baljit Kaur, the mother-in-Law of the complainant from the accounts mentioned above. But, the opposite party has not bothered about what to say of releasing her share even did not reply to the legal notice. It is further pleaded that the opposite party has miserably failed to honor the legal right of the complainant qua her right to receive the amount of her share lying with the opposite party for such long time and thus she was compelled to seek legal recourse by issuing legal notice through counsel and till date no reply has been received from the opposite party. It is further pleaded that after submission of all the required documents by the complainant with the office of the opposite party, no heed has been given to do the need full rather the opposite party has miserably failed to provide due services and thus under the circumstances the opposite party have committed deficiency in service and liable to compensate the complainant for the unnecessary harassment suffered so far due to unfair and inefficient services by the opposite parties by withholding her legal payment. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to release the amount of her share lying deposited with the opposite party and Rs.50,000/- as Damages and compensation on account of non-performing of due services and Rs.20,000/ as legal charges from the opposite party and also interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of maturity till payment may also awarded in favour of the complainant by allowing the complaint, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant is not consumer of the answering opposite party. It is pleaded that Smt. Baljit Kaur was having account with the answering opposite party and in those account she had nominated her son Harmanjit Singh who as per bank norms was released the payment by the answering opposite party with in rules and norms and nothing wrong has been done as alleged. It is further pleaded that on the complaint of the complainant a hold has been put on the amount of Rs.3,95,000/- as per record of the bank being disputed amount. It is further pleaded that there is no dispute that the complainant had made a request to release her share but she did not submit the documents and any order showing herself to entitled to realize the amount from the opposite party which were needed to release the payment in her favour as she was no where shown be legal heir of Smt. Baljit Kaur account holder. It is further pleaded that Smt. Baljit Kaur had nominated her son and as such as per bank procedure and rules the amount could be released to the nominee which was done accordingly and it was the duty of nominee to make payment. It is further pleaded that reply to her complaint was duly given to her on 26.11.2013 as is clear from the copy of reply. The answering opposite party had taken an undertaking from other legal heirs of Smt. Baljit Kaur to release the amount to their brother Sh. Harmanjit and thereby indemnifying the bank in case any better claimant comes forward to claim the share in the amount of Smt. Baljit Kaur and thus the answering opposite party has done no favour to anyone. It is further pleaded that Sh. Harmanjit had also given an undertaking that he will distribute the amount to all legal heirs legally entitled to it and also agreed to indemnify the bank in case any better claimant comes forward later on as is clear from the copy of said undertaking dated 19.04.2012. Thus, the answering opposite part has done nothing wrong and illegal as alleged.
On merits, the opposite party have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit of Reena Bhandari, (Complainant) alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Raman Kumar, (Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Hanuman Chowk, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that Smt.Reena Walia was married to Manjit Singh who was son of Smt.Baljit Kaur. It is further argued that Manjit Singh had expired on 24.02.1991 and Smt.Baljit Kaur had expired on 29.12.2012 and said Smt.Baljit Kaur was having saving accounts with the opposite party. It is further argued that Smt.Baljit Kaur expired without leaving any Will and complainant is also one of her legal heir. It is further argued that now complainant has married with Sh.Sanjay Bhandari and living at above said address. It is further argued that other legal heirs namely Ajit Kaur, Gulshanjit Kaur, Jagjit Kaur, Amarjit Singh and Harmanjit Singh have received their shares from the opposite party. However, share of the complainant was not released without any justification. It is further argued by the counsel for the complainant that complainant has also obtained succession certificate from the court of Mrs.Girish Addl. Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur vide order dated 19.02.2013 copy of which is Ex.C10 as per which application for grant of succession certificate was allowed by the competent court of law in respect of amount lying deposited in the name of her deceased sons. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to receive the amount of her share lying deposited with the opposite party. Failure to release the amount amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party had argued that Smt.Baljit Kaur was having account with the answering party and had nominated Harmanjit Singh as nominee who was released payment as per the bank norms. It is further argued that on the complaint of complainant a hold has been put on the amount of Rs.3,95,000/- as per the record of the bank on the deposited amount. It is further argued that complainant never approached the opposite party for release of her share rather she failed to submit the documents. It is further argued that amount was released to Harmanjit Singh being nominee as per bank rules and said Harmanjit Singh had given under taking that he will distribute the amount to all legal heirs legally entitled to it and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. It is admitted fact that Smt.Baljit Kaur was having two saving accounts with the opposite party and said Smt.Baljit Kaur expired on 29.12.2012. It is further admitted fact that Manjit Singh son of Smt.Baljit Kaur had expired on 24.02.1991 and complainant is widow of said Manjit Singh. It is admitted fact that Smt.Baljit Kaur died leaving behind legal heirs namely Ajit Kaur, Gulshanjit Kaur, Jagjit Kaur, Amarjit Singh and Harmanjit Singh and complainant is widow of pre deceased son of Smt.Baljit Kaur. The opposite party admitted that payment was made/released in favour of Harmanjit Singh being nominee after taking no objection from other legal heirs and on complaint having been lodged by the complainant a hold was put on amount of Rs.3,95,000/- being disputed amount. We are of the view that bank has released payment in favour of Harmanjit Singh being nominee as per the bank record and as per the settled law nominee is only a receiving hand for receiving the amount for disbursement of the same amongst the legal heirs of the deceased. It has come on record that bank has already put a hold on the amount of Rs.3,95,000/- and complainant has also obtained succession certificate from the competent court law regarding estate of her deceased minor sons and Smt.Baljit Kaur was also party to the said litigation. It is proved on record that complainant is widow of pre deceased son of Smt. Baljit Kauri and was definatly entitled to received share of her husband in the amount lying deposited with the opposite party bank.
12. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to release the amount of share of the complainant lying deposited with the opposite party bank alongwith interest at the rate applicable to savings accounts from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. Opposite party is also burdened with cost of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Dec. 11, 2023 Member
*YP*
