IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 182/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
28.12.2016 04.01.2017 10.08.2018
Nasifa Chowdhury,
D/o. Samsuddin Chowdhury,
Resident of 81, Old Police Line Road,
Gorabazar,
PO. & PS. Berhampore
Dist. Murshidabad.
PIN. 742101
Mob. No.- 9476336691 …..………… Complainant.
-vs-
- The Sub-Post Master,
Gorabazar Post Office, Gorabazar,
PO. & PS. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad.
PIN. 742101
b) Syed Ahmed,
S/o. Lokman Hossain,
Vill. & PO. Gitgram,
PS. Bharatpur
Dist. Murshidabad
PIN.742401 …………........ Opposite Parties.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
Ld. Partha Sarathi Ghosh, Advocate
Ld. Utpal Kr. Paul , Advocate ……… for Complainant
Ld. Sirdhhartha Kumar Dhar, Advocate ….. for Opposite Party No. (a)
Ld. Debraj Mukherjee, Advocate ……… for Opposite Party No. (b)
Present : Sri Ashis Kumar Senapati …. ……… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
The door of this Forum has been knocked by the Complainant for redressal of the consumer dispute as per the C. P. Act, 1986.
In concise, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had started an MIS account under the Opposite Party No. (a) on and from 12.12.2012, vide A/c No. 6786532, presently 7330787631, out of her own money which was withdrawn from her Bank A/c, being the Bank of India, a/c No. 430810110003842, for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- only through a cheque and from that period the Complainant was regularly withdrawing the earnest money of Rs. 2,125/- only per month till 16.08.2016. Thereafter the Complainant added the name of her husband, the Opposite Party No. (b), in her said MIS account as ‘Joint B’ Type in nature which clearly provided that any one of the Account Holders might operate the said MIS account.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
Thereafter the Complainant due to some financial crisis had applied for withdrawing the money from the said account and severally requested before the Opposite Party No. (a) for withdrawal of the money but the Opposite Party No. (a) had ignored the matter and had delayed the process with an undue interest. At last the Complainant sent a written Application on 12.09.2016 to the Opposite Party No. (a) for withdrawing the money but the Opposite Party No. (a) did not consider the same without any cause. Ultimately the Complainant issued a legal notice on 09.11.2016 to the Opposite Party No. (a) seeking clarification for not disbursing the amount from the said MIS account and surprisingly received an information that on the basis of an Advocate’s Letter on behalf of the Opposite Party No. (b), the Opposite Party No. (a) had stopped all kind of transaction on the said MIS account for which the Complainant had/ has faced huge financial loss , what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party No. (a) towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Parties.
Resisting the complaint, both the Opposite Party No. (a) and the Opposite Party No. (b) have filed separate Written Versions denying all the contentions made by the Complainant in her petition of complaint and stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action, the case is barred by limitation and the Forum has no jurisdiction to deal the instant matter.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
The case specifically stated by the Opposite Party No. (a) in gist is that an MIS account being No. 733078763 is lying with this Opposite Party but on 31.08.2016, the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party No. (b) by sending a letter informed this Opposite party No. (a) that a criminal case is pending between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. (b) before the Court of the Ld. C.J.M, Murshidabad and requested to stop the payment of any amount lying in the aforesaid MIS account. Thereafter the Complainant sent another legal notice on 09.11.2016 for payment of the amount lying in the aforesaid MIS account to the Complainant.
But the fact is that the above mentioned MIS account is the Joint “B” type which means any one of the account holders can withdraw the amount lying in the said MIS account. In the instant case, one of the account holder is claiming the amount and the other account holder raised the objection against such withdrawal for which this Opposite Party No. (a) specifically stated that they are ready to pay any amount to any of the joint account holders after getting a positive direction from the Ld. Forum.
So though this Opposite Party No. (a) was not able to pay any amount to the Complainant as it involves a complicated question of law, there was no malafide intention on part of this Opposite Party No. (a) and thus the Opposite Party No. (a) had denied any deficiency and negligence in rendering service on their part towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case against them.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
The specific case of the Opposite Party No. (b) in terse is that the Complainant was the wife of this Opposite Party No. (b) and after their marriage for reasons to meet up the monthly expenses of the Complainant this Opposite Party No. (b) had decided to open an MIS account and handed over the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- only to the father of the Complainant who had arranged the formalities for opening the said MIS account and the father of the Complainant deposited the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- only in the separate account of the Complainant and thereafter the Complainant and this Opposite Party No. (b) had opened this MIS account in the joint name with the Complainant under the Opposite party No. (b). The Complainant had no source of income to have the said huge amount.
Subsequently, the marital relationship of this Opposite Party No. (b) and the Complainant was deteriorated and the Complainant had lodged a Criminal case at Berhampore PS and consequently the marital relationship was completely broken down and this Opposite Party No. (b) constrained to pronounce ‘TALAK’ to the Complainant and after the said TALAK this Opposite Party No. (b) sent an Advocate’s letter to the Opposite Party No. (a) informing the whole matter and to stop all further transactions as he is the joint account holder and joint operator of the said MIS account.
So this Opposite Party No. (b) had done no deficiency and negligence in rendering service as he is not at all liable to provide any service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case against him with cost.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
Points for Determination
1. Whether the instant case is maintainable ?
2. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?
3. Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. (a) is that, whether the Opposite Party No. (a) is justified to stop the payment of money lying in the aforesaid MIS account in favour of the Complainant or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Advocates for the Complainant and both the Opposite Parties and critically appreciation of the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party No. (a) as an MIS account, vide No. 733078763 is lying with this Opposite Party No. (a) in the joint name of the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. (b) in the Joint “B” type which means any one of the account holders can withdraw and/or operate the amount lying in the said MIS account.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
Admittedly the fact remains that the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. (b) are the ‘husband and wife’ and during their wedlock a baby daughter was born 16.07.2012 and thereafter presently their marital relation is bad.
It is further admitted by both the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. (b) that a Criminal case is still pending before the Ld. C.J.M. Court, at Berhampore, between this Complainant and the Opposite Party No. (b) in regard to their marital relationship which was specifically written in the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party No. (b) and verbally admitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant at the time of hearing argument and has written in the ‘Brief Notes of Argument’.
Moreover, the record reveals that the Opposite Party No. (a) also specifically stated that though the said MIS account is the Joint “B” type account, which means any one of the account holder can operate and/or withdraw any amount lying in the said MIS account, which was also admitted by the Complainant in her petition of Complaint and by the Opposite Party No. (b) in his Written Version. So as per the Rules, as the said MIS account is the Joint ‘B’ type the Opposite Party No. (a) was/is bound to hold or stop payment of the said account on allegation and/or objection made by any one of the said account holder and this Opposite Party No. (b) has done the same. Thus it is proved beyond any doubt that being the service provider, the Opposite Party No. (a) has done no wrong and no deficiency has been rendered by them and moreover the Opposite Party No. (a) is justified to stop payment of the said MIS account on objection of one account holder.
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
Now the fact remains that both the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. (b) have claimed the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- only as their own. But in this regard, the Consumer Forum has no right and/or jurisdiction to decide the fact that actually who is the owner of that amount of money. The Consumer Forum has only the jurisdiction to find that whether the service provider/s had done any deficiency and/or negligence in rendering their service towards the bonafide Consumer/Complainant or not and in the instant case the service provider [the Opposite Party No. (a)] had done no deficiency and/or negligence towards their Consumer/ the Complainant by any means rather the Opposite Party no. (a) is justified to ‘Stop Payment’ relating to the aforesaid MIS account.
The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to ascertain actually how the amount was deposited in the account of the Complainant being No. 430810110003842 in the Bank of India. It is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to declare how the amount was deposited in the A/c No. 430810110003842 and who is/are actually entitled to get the amount lying with A/c No. 6786532 (new 7330787631) lying with the Opposite Party No. (a) .
Moreover, the Opposite Party No. (b) is not the service provider towards the Complainant and the Complainant is not the Consumer under the Opposite Party No. (b) and thus no Consumer Case may lie against the Opposite Party No. (b) before the Consumer Forum.
Cont. ……….…. 9
= 9 =
So, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the Complainant could not establish her case against any of the Opposite Parties and thus, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the instant case is dismissed against both the Opposite Parties.
Therefore, in the light of the above analysis it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has failed to prove her case and is not entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for determination are decided in negative. It is to be mentioned that the ‘ Final Order’ of this Forum shall not be a constraint for filing any Suit before the appropriate Court of Law seeking the proper relief.
In short, the Complainant deserves failure.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party No. (a) and the Opposite Party No. (b) without any cost.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Cont. ……….…. 10
= 10 =
Let a plain copy of this ‘Final Order’ be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
