FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member:
The case of the complainant is that her huband being a consumer of the OP maintaining a savings bank account jointly with his mother with central Bank of India , Barrackpore Branch. He had time deposit accounts in the name of minors being nos 3036742688,3036742757, 3036742780 & 3036742848 @ Rs.48000/- each in the name of his elder daughter Miss Chandrika Kumari Kar and another three time deposit account Nos. 3036743046 of Rs.24000/- and 3036742917, 3036742951, and 3036742973 @ Rs.48000/- each in the name of younger daughter Miss Remeka Kar with the same bank branch with standing instruction to credit quarterly interest in the said savings bank . Both the husband and mother -in –law of the petitioner died intestate living behind the petitioner/complainant Bratima Kar and her two children namely Chandrika Kumari Kar and Remeka Kar. The complainant lodged an application dated 13.7.2012 requesting the branch manager to pay the outstanding balance standing in the said deceased savings account and she also claimed maturity payment of all the time deposit accounts standing in the name of her two daughters. Due to delaying process of the bank branch petitioner alongwith two daughters applied for premature payment of those tome deposits under the cover of letter dated 18.03.2013. That an official enquiry verification was undertaken and thereafter they received one RL being no BRW 395387237 dated 19.04.2013 and another reminder speed post envelope being no. EW 217226176 IN containing same contents of letter dated 18.04.2013 under signature of senior Manager instructing the petitioners to submit deceased claim form annexure 4/6/7&8 alongwith two sureties and ID proof for establishing as a claimant on behalf of minors to receive premature payment of term deposits standing in the name of minor daughters reached on 25.04.2013 & 04.06.2013 respectively. The subject grievances in respect of delaying the settlement of claim and wrong instruction by the bank branch had been taken by the Chief Grievance Redressal Officer, General Manager Operation Central Bank of India, Central Office, 2nd floor M.M.O building MG Road Fort Mumbai- 400023 under the cover of a speed post envelope being no. a RW 353659994 IN dated 07.05.2013. Lastly the complainants finding no other alternative opted to receive the payment of dues from the said bank branch and the branch at their own discretion renewed and/or lastly reissued on 05.09.2013 the questioned fixed deposit receipts without authority at their own liking terms & conditions in absence of specific instruction from incumbent to do so and handed over those to the complainant after transferring amount of those time deposit account to their Chandannagar branch. Thereafter the complainant requested in writing for premature closure of those renewed and reissued fixed deposit account in her letter dated 24.10.2013 what had not been entertained by the branch. The complainant claimed TDS certificate for the financial year 2011-12,2012-13 and 2013-14 against those term deposits but the bank branch failed to issue any certificate in the name of Bikash Ranjan Kar father and natural guardian of those term deposit account holders and gave the complainant TDS certificate in the name of concerned holder minor beneficiaries. The bank branch settled the deceased savings bank account on 24.10.2013 after 15 months from lodging complaint by issuing Bankers cheque in favour of Bratirima Kar and arranged for transfer to its branch office at Chandannagar and wrongfully renewed time deposit accounts opened in the name of Chandrima Kumari Kar and Remeka Kar with inclusion of name of Bratirima Kar as a legal guardian and or natural guardian ignoring the fact of attainment of majority by the elder daughter. Thereby the bank branch took 15 months to settle the deceased savings bank account where there was no fault of submission of documents. From the facts and figures narrated in the column it transpires that Central Bank of India Barrackpur Branch did not perform its obligation as a nationalized bank by wrongfully withholding the amount due on deceased savings bank accounts for a period more than 15 months and also withholding all the amount due on fixed deposit account after their maturity wrongfully ignoring the claim of incumbent for maturity/premature payments thereof caused for the arrogant attitude of the senior manager. The complainant filed the instant complaint against the OP for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and prayed compensation as stated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
By filing written version the OP No.2 denied the allegations as leveled against him and averred that the complainant has claim before the chief grievance redressal officer and General Manager Operation Central Bank of India l sent email to redressal officer and she got all the claims met fulfilled/realized on the strength of the production of all the pertinently relevant documents. The OP bank issued number of cheques as a bonafide customer friendly bent up of mind, the OP bank No.1 bonafidely issued 8 no of cheque in the name of the relevant beneficiary and named account holder beneficiaries named in the relevant FD account received no forwarding the OP the bank no.2 to credit the same in the name of eligibly deserve person accordingly no deficiency in service and or unfair trade practice never occurred or under take by neither of the OPs. This answering OP also averred that the allegation purely bank upon the OP No.1 not in OP No.2 if the complainant seek proper relief she has to file the complain in proper court of law and he is nothing but a custodian of that amounts and he has no negligence in service.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
The OP No.2 filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written version.
Both sides filed written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the OP no.2 heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the Complainant Bratirima Kar ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards
the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether
the opposite party is liable for compensation to her?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based
on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Bratirima Kar is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party? ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The deceased husband of the complainant being the customer of the OP 1 bank used to maintain account before the OP bank, so complainant being a beneficiary is entitled to get service from the OP .
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party No.1 are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly and cause of action took place within the district. The complainant prayed for a direction upon OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental anxiety, agony, harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice of the OPs and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The case of the complainant is that she is a consumer of the OP No.1 bank as her husband and mother-in-law maintaining accounts before the OP No.1 and he/deceased husband had time deposit accounts in the name of minors being nos 3036742688,3036742757, 3036742780 & 3036742848 @ Rs.48000/- each in the name of his elder daughter Miss Chandrika Kumari Kar and another four time deposit account Nos. 3036743046 of Rs.24000/- and 3036742917, 3036742951, and 3036742973 @ Rs.48000/- each in the name of younger daughter Miss Remeka Kar with the same bank branch with standing instruction to credit quarterly interest in the said savings bank . Both the husband and mother -in –law of the petitioner died intestate living behind the petitioner/complainant Bratirima Kar and her two children namely Chandrika Kumari Kar and Remeka Kar. The complainant lodged an application dated 13.7.2012 requesting the branch manager to pay the outstanding balance standing in the said deceased savings account and she also claimed maturity payment of all the time deposit accounts standing in the name of her two daughters. The complainant by another letter dated 27.2.2013 claimed the maturity amount of all the said term deposits of both the minors, submitting all the original deposit receipts and other relevant documents in support of the claim but without any success for a pretty long time. Meanwhile the respondent/Op No.1 branch renewed and/or reissued those fixed deposits with material alteration on 5.9.2013 at their own discretion and without any specific instruction from the account holders, transferred the said term deposit accounts to the Chandannagar branch who stamped those FD receipts as if those are issued by the respondents/OP No.2 branch and opened a joint S.B.A/c in the name of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that in the said renewed term deposits there inserted the name of complainant once as ‘legal guardian’’ and once as ‘’ natural guardian”” in the place of the deceased husband with change of original term deposits amount.
The OP No.1 did not put his appearance in this proceeding and there is no reflection in the case record as to sending notice from this Forum.
The OP No.2 appeared and contesting the case by filing written version denying the allegations leveled against him. He averred that the complainant had claim before the chief grievance redressal officer and General Manager Operation Central Bank of India sent email to redressal officer and she got all the claims met fulfilled/realized on the strength of the production of all the pertinently relevant documents. The OP bank issued number of cheques as a bonafide customer friendly bent up of mind, the OP bank No.1 bonafidely issued 8 no of cheque in the name of the relevant beneficiary and named account holder beneficiaries named in the relevant FD account received no forwarding the OP the bank no.2 to credit the same in the name of eligibly deserve person accordingly no deficiency in service and or unfair trade practice never occurred or under take by neither of the OPs. This answering OP also averred that the allegation purely bank upon the OP No.1 not in OP No.2 if the complainant seek proper relief she has to file the complain in proper court of law and he is nothing but a custodian of that amounts and he has no negligence in service.
After perusing the complaint petition and documents it appears that after the death of the husband & mother- in-law the complainant filed her application before the OP No.1 to realize the money including interest laid in the account which she and her two daughters inherited from her husband and mother-in-law or invested in the name of the daughters as fixed deposits. But the OP No.1 took time to credit the proceeds in the name of the complainant after following the formalities as envisaged in the banking rules and regulations. As a result she/complainant compelled to make complain before the Chief Grievance Redressal Officer and General Manager Operation, Central Bank of India sent an e-mail to redressal officer and lastly she got all claims. Thereafter the complainant filed the instant complaint for getting redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. From the documents it is crystal clear that the OP No.1 sent all the fixed deposits in the name of the daughters in the OP No.2 branch in accordance with the prayer of the complainant but delayed as the claim pertains to recovery of deceased claim which requires formalities and furnishing documents. So the grievance of the complainant is that the OP No.2 bank inserted the name of the complainant as Legal guardian in the fixed deposits of major daughters, inordinate delay in settling the deceased savings account and transferring the FD accounts to OP No.2 imposing income deduction only on the term deposits of Remeka Kar hereby reducing original T.D. amount deposited by the deceased was done without authority of the incumbent, amounting to restrictive trade practice/unfair trade practice as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act. It appears from the case record that nowhere in the complaint petition it is stated the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant due to delay in settling claim and the OP No.1 transferred the fixed deposits at the option of the complainant in the name of the daughters of the complainant before the OP No.2 branch. The complainant also failed to prove the injury suffered by her for writing her name as legal guardian. The complainant assailed the deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 but he was not issued notice properly as a result he could appear and did not file written version. The absence of OP No.1 caused fatal for the proper adjudication of the case. From the above discussion we may safely conclude that the complaint has no leg to stand for which it is liable to be dismissed.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complainant failed to prove her case by adducing cogent document/evidence and therefore, the complainant could not succeed on contest. However considering the facts and circumstances there is no order as to cost. With the abovementioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
4). Whether the complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to her?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant proved her case beyond any doubt so she is not entitled to get compensation as prayed for.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties, with no order as to cost.
The Opposite Party No.1&2 are exonerated from their liability.
No other reliefs are awarded to this complainant.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
