Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/52

Tejinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :           52 of 2019

Date of Institution :      06.03.2019

Date of Decision :        15.10.2019

Tejinder Singh Sandhu aged about 36 years son of Gurmeet Singh son of Harcharan Singh resident of Village Bhag Singh Wala, District Faridkot.

Versus

 

State Bank of Patiala (Now State Bank of India), Branch Circular Road, (Branch Code No.50051), Faridkot, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.

..........OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                         

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to them to release the amount of Rs.2 lacs with interest for FDR No. 0464386 to complainant and for further directing OP to pay

 

cc no.-52 of 2019

Rs.50,000/-on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses.

2                                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Gurmeet Singh father of complainant was having an account with OP Bank and he deposited Rs. 2 lacs in OP Bank and got released FDR No.0464386 on 18.12.2017 having date of maturity as 18.12.2018 and total amount payable on maturity with interest was 2,12,796/-. Complainant was made nominee in that FDR. It is submitted that during his life time father of complainant executed a will in his favour on 12.03.2015 before Joint Registrar, Sadiq, District Faridkot vide which his father made complainant owner of his entire estate,  moveable and immoveable property and amount deposited in bank including FDR in question. It is further submitted that father of complainant died on 22.03.2018 in British Columbia and after his death, complainant reached India and approached OP with request to release the amount of said FDR in which complainant was nominee. Complainant furnished copy of will and requisite documents to OP Bank, but OP has not released him any amount on account said FDR. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OP Bank has not released the amount of FDR to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part OP. All this act and conduct of OP has caused harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

cc no.-52 of 2019

3                                                        Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.03.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement wherein asserted that complaint filed by complainant is entirely misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the same. Opposite party has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that father of complainant was having an account in the bank of OP and FDR No.0464386 was issued in the name of his father, but it is sternly denied that his father ever filed any signed nomination papers with name of complainant as nominee. Gurmeet Singh did not execute or appoint any of his nominee in said FDR. Moreover, complainant never visited the office of OP to get released the amount of said FDR nor did he ever gave any information regarding death of his father to answering OP. No nomination was ever done by father of complainant. No cause of action arises against answering OP as it has never refused complainant regarding release of said FDR. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

cc no.-52 of 2019

5                                    Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and therefore, proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar, Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala Ex. OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and thereafter, despite availing sufficient opportunities for tendering evidence, OP did not conclude the same and therefore, vide order dated 9.10.2019 evidence of Opposite Party was closed by order of this Forum.

7                                  From the careful perusal of record and evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that deceased father of complainant deposited Rs. 2 lacs in the form of FDR in his name in the bank of OP and being nominee of his father as per registered will, complainant is entitled to receive the matured value of FDR in question, but despite several requests, Opposite party has not paid him amount involved in said FDR without any reason, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. On the other hand, plea taken by opposite party is that all the allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect and there is no deficiency in service on their part. As per OP, at the time obtaining FDR, deceased

cc no.-52 of 2019

father of complainant did not nominate complainant for receiving the matured value of said FDR after his death. Nomination column is lying vacant in said FDR and at the place meant for Nomination, no name is written over there. Ld counsel for Opposite party has brought our attention towards document Ex OP-2 which is copy of folio from Nomination Register (Deposits) of State Bank of India, that clearly shows that on 18.12.2017 no nomination in the name of Tejinder Singh/complainant is made. There is no nomination in the name of complainant on 18.12.2017, that proves the version of Opposite Party that in the absence of any nomination, Bank cannot release amount on account of said matured FDR to complainant. Complainant is required to fulfil the requisite formalities for release of FDR amount and thereafter, amount lying deposited against said FDR be disbursed to entitled successors as per Law.

8                                              From the above discussion and evidence placed on record by opposite party, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. In the light of document Ex OP-2, produced by Opposite Party, there remains no doubt that father of complainant did not nominate complainant to receive the amount against said FDR. Complainant has failed to prove his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, OP Bank is directed to release the amount lying against said FDR on account of maturity value of FDR purchased by deceased

cc no.-52 of 2019

Gurmeet Singh be disbursed to the legal heirs of Gurmeet Singh after fulfilling the requisite formalities as per rules. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 15.10.2019

 

(Param Pal Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                         President