DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.01 of 2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 06.01.2015
DATE OF ORDER:-14.01.2015
Charan Singh son of Shri Sheo Narain, Caste Ahir, Resident of village Surana, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- Syndicate Bank Branch Narnaul through its Manager
- Superintendent of Police, District Mahendergarh at Narnaul
- Randhir Singh, A.S.I. Police Station City Narnaul No.564/NNL
………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that the complainant is having an account No.82632200105492 with opposite party No.1 and as such he is consumer of opposite party No.1. The complainant has alleged that the police of police station City Narnaul in collusion with the persons of party politicians lodged FIR No. 156 dated 19.04.2012 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC against the complainant, but no case is made out against the complainant under the above said sections. The complainant has averred that opposite party No.3, the employee of opposite party No.2, sought the footage of C.C. Camera vide application dated 28.06.2012, but in which later on, the employees of opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.3 by adding wrote that “the account of aforesaid accused Charan Singh be sealed because the amount lying in the said account is the case property.” It is averred that opposite party No.1 has unauthorizedly sealed the account of the complainant, while neither the amount lying in the aforesaid bank account is the case property, nor any Court has hold for the same. The complainant requested the opposite parties several times to open his bank account in question, but to no effect. The complainant sent legal notice dated 27.11.2014 through his counsel Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, Narnaul to the opposite parties, but it went unheeded. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to open his aforesaid bank account, besides claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
2. At the admission stage, we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Admittedly, an FIR No.156 dated 19.04.2012 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC was registered against the complainant with the concerned police station. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that opposite party No.1 has ceased the account in question of the complainant and the complainant is not being allowed to make withdrawal from his said account on the instruction dated 28.06.2012 issued by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1.
3. From the facts as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint, no case of deficiency in service is made out against the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 has stopped the transaction or withdrawal by the complainant from his account in question with the bank on the strength of the instructions issued by opposite party No.3 on 28.06.2012. Even otherwise, the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 28.06.2012 but the present complaint has been filed on 18.12.2014 beyond the prescribed period of limitation of two years under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Taking into account all these facts, we are of the view that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
Announced:-
14.01.2015
