In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/100/2017.
Date of filing: 17/04/2017. Date of Final Order: 16/12/2024.
SMT. BIBHABINI MADHU
w/o Sri Prosanta Maldhu
of 796, B. Mukherjee Road
P.S. & P.O. Chandannagar,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN- 712136., WB. …… Complainant.
-vs -
- The Branch Manager,
Allahabad Bank, Chandannagar Branch (497)
P.O. Chandannagar, Dist. Hooghly PIN. 712136.
- Tapati Chatterjee
W/O Late Pradip Kumar Chatterjee
- Jibok Chatterjee
S/O Late Pradip Kumar Chatterjee
- Rishika Islam Naskar
D/O Late Pradip Kumar Chatterjee
All are residents of Flat F, 1st floor, Ma Bhabatarini Abasan,
46, North Station Road, (opposite to United Bank of India), Kolkata 700109.
- Sri Pratyush Kr. Chattopadhyay
s/o Late Shashi Bhusan Chattopadhyay.
Of Ma Bhabatarini Abasan, 46 North station Road
Opposite United Bank of India Kolkata-700109.
- Anjana Chatterjee
W/O Late Prodosh Kumar Chatterjee,
r/o Flat no. 4E, Block no. E, Dream Park,
Sonarpur Station Road, P.O. Sonarpur,
South 24 Parganas, Kolkata 700103.
- Ipsita Singh
d/o Late Prodosh Kumar Chatterjee,
w/o Rajeev Kumar Singh,
r/o Mainak Garden, Lilly 4C, 53 Laskarpur Road,
Ramkrishna Nagar, Sonarpur, South 24 Parganas,
West Bengal, Kolkata 700084.
- Debadrita Sarkar
d/o Late Prodosh Kumar Chatterjee,
w/o Sujit Sarkar,
r/o Flat no. 3A, Block E, Dream Park,
Sonarpur Station Road, Dist. South 24 Parganas, Kolkata 700103.
- Smt Aindrila Bose (Chatterjee)
d/o Late Shashi Bhusan Chattopadhyay.
Balipota (Dhopara) Amta, P.O. & P.S. Amta Dist. Howrah 711401.
…..opposite parties
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the complainant has a saving Bank Account No. 50372051335 in the Office of Allahabad Bank at Chandannagar Branch in the name of the petitioner and have some amount in the said account.
The Petitioner filed the full KYC in her own name in the said account i.e voter identity Card, Aadhaar, P.A.N etc. Presently the amount is lying in her account at Rs. 502050/- only.
A cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was issued by one dated 10.02.2017 in favour of the petitioner and she deposited the cheque to the Bank in her account. As on urgent basis the petitioner withdraw a sum of Rs. 1000/- only and there after the amount is credited in her account at Rs. 502050/-. On 10/03/2017 she went to the Bank for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 3000/-only from her account but the Bank authority not to pay the amount in her favour and also returned it to your petitioner, though she produced all the documents including her S.B. Pass Book to the Bank Authority. The bank returned the Withdrawn Slip to your petitioner and asked her not to pay her the amount as per order. The petitioner sent a request prayer to the bank authority on 20.03.2017. The bank authority sent a notice dated 20.03.2017 through their Advocate with some grounds and noted in the notice "the amount shall be kept as HOLD and she is not allowed to withdraw money from her S.B. A/C. The Cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was issued by one Nisith Kumar Chatterjee. The remark of hold the amount of petitioner's is too illegal, un justified one as she is the only claimant and owner of the whole of amount which is credited in her S.B. A/C. The entire amount is lying in the Office of the Allahabad Bank i.e O.P.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party no. 1 to operate regularly to the complainant and also to withdraw and also deposit the amount to her S.B account and to give any other relief/ reliefs as deem fit and proper.
Defense Case:- The opposite party No. 1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the complainant opened a savings bank a/c before OP Bank, vide S.B. A/C. No. 00372081335, by depositing Rs. 1000/ (Rupees One Thousand Only). Thereafter the complainant deposited one cheque on 10.02.2017, alleged to be issued by Nisith Kumar Chatterjee, who is also a valued customer of OP. Bank, having savings bank account no. 20065512822. That the said cheque was produced along with a medical certificate that said Nisith Kumar Chatterjee is admitted to Nursing Home and he is not in a state of putting his signature, hence the thumb impression of Nisith Kumar Chatterjee was identified by Doctor in his certificate. Moreover while depositing the said cheque the complainant told the Bank Authority she urgently needs the money as it is required for treatment expenditure of Nisith Kumar Chatterjee, hence on humanitarian ground, without any further query processed the impugned cheque and Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) has been credited to the Bank account of the complainant. Soon after that the lagal heirs of Nisith Kumar Chatterjee, namely Pratip Kumar Chattejee, Prodosh Kumar Chatterjee, Aindrila Bose (Chatterjee) & Pratyush Kumar Chattopadhyay rushed to the O.P. Bank on 13.02.2017 and informed that the complainant was the maid servent of Nisith Kumar Chatterjee and she alleged to have committed criminal conspiracy, furthermore it has been informed that said Nisith Kumar Chatterjee died on 10.02.2017 at 12.05 P.M., i.e. the date on which the impugned cheque was produced and requested the Branch Manager not to allow the complainant to withdraw Rs. 5,00,000/-, i.e. the amount, allegedly misappropriated by the complainant by using criminal conspiracy and have also made written application to the O.P. Bank to that effect Thereafter on 14.02.2017 Ld. Advocate Ram Prasad Thakur on behalf of his client P.K. Chatterjee sent one legal notice to the O.P. Bank and informed that some fraudulent activities were done to misappropriate the money and property of the deceased (Nisith Kumar Chatterjee), hence requested that to ensure no amount is withdrawn from the account of the deceased. In the mean time the complainant attempted to withdraw the entire money but her account was kept on hold. Thereafter the complainant through her Ld. Advocate Mr. Dilip Ranjan Chowdhury sent one legal legal notice, dt. 22.02.2017 to the OP Bank, in the mean time Ld. Advocate Mr. Kajal Ray, through his legal notice. dt 03.03.2017 on behalf of his clients Pratip Kumar Chattejee. Prodosh Kumar Chatterjee, Aindrila Bose (Chatterjee) & Pratyush Kumar Chattopadhyay informed the Bank Authority that said Nisith Kumar Chatterjee died on 10.02.2017 at 12.05 PM. and also informed that the maid servant of his client's brother (Nitish Kumar Chatterjee), namely Bibhabini Madhu by making criminal conspiracy has attempted to withdraw Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) from the Bank account of Nisith Kumar Chatterjee, vide savings bank account no. 20665512822 and informed that FIR has been lodged before Chandannagar Police Station to that effect. Further requested not to allow Bibhabini Madhu to appropriate the money of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) from the Bank account of Nisith Kumar Chatterjee, vide savings bank account no. 20665512822, until disposal of the criminal proceedings. The legal heirs of the Deceased Nisith Kumar Chatterjee also provided one photo copy of written complaint made before Superintendent of Police, Hooghly and officer in charge of Chandannagar P.S. all are dt. 14.02.2017. That the O.P. through its Ld. Advocate Mr. Abhiroop Ghosh replied to the Legal notice dt. 22.02.2017 of Mr. Dilip Ranjan Chowdhury on 20.03.2017, stating the aforesaid facts and stated that until proper investigation is made and any direction is passed by the Ld. Court regarding the disputed cheque, amounting Rs. 5,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE LACS) ONLY, the S.B. A/C. No. 50372051335 of Allahabad Bank, Chandannagar Br of Bibhabini Madhu, shall be kept as "HOLD" and she is not allowed to withdraw money from the aforesaid account until and unless the dispute is solved regarding the impugned cheque, vide cheque no. 170207, dt 10.02.2017 of Allahabad Bank, Chandannagar Br.
Further on 10.03.2017 the complainant attempted to withdraw Rs 3000/- from the the S.B. A/C No. 50372051335, which was not permitted to do so, hence she further sent legal notice to OP. through her Ld. Advocate Mr. Dilip Ranjan Chowdhury on 20.03.2017. In reply Ld. Advocate opf O.P. Mr. Abhiroop Ghosh through its reply dt. 04.04.2017 replied that Ld. Advocate Kajal Ray through his legal notice that on the aforesaid issue, informed that his clients, le. the legal heirs of the said Nisith Kumar Chatterjee has lodged complaint before the Officer In Charge, Chandannagar Police Station. Hence the O.P. to protect the interest of its valued customer, put the S.B. A/C No. 50372051335 of Allahabad Bank, Chandannagar Br of Bibhabini Madhu on HOLD and she is not permitted to withdraw any amount from the said account, until either of the parties bring necessary order from the Ld. Court but instead of producing relevant documents she filed the instant case. Even none of the letter issued by Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, specifically denied the allegation made by the legal heirs of the deceased Nishit Kumar Chatterjee.
The legal heirs of the Nisith Kumar Chatterjee also filed a civil suit against the present complainant for cancellation of Gift Deed, alleged to be executed by deceased Nisith Kumar Chatterjee, vide T.S. No. 256/2017, pending before Ld. Civil Judge (Sr.Div) Chandannagar, on which Ld. Court has issued injunction order against the present complainant.
That the legal heir of the Nisith Kumar Chatterjee has also filed one Writ Petition before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, vide W.P. No. 18674(W) of 2017. wherein the present complainant, officer in charge of Chandannagar Police Station, United Nursing Home, State Of W. B. and Allahabad Bank has been made party to that writ petition, which is pending for adjudication.
That it has been wrongly stated that the petitioner is facing too much trouble and not in a position to maintain her family members, without the money.
That the O.P. is legally bound to protect the interest of its customers, hence without any correspondence from the part of complainant to that effect Your O.P. has neither any option but to keep the said account on Hold until any further development, hence the statement made in paragraph no. 5 of the complaint is meaningless and baseless.
That the O.P. being a Nationalized Bank, its foremost duty is to protect its customer's interest. The Complainant as well as said Nisith Kumar Chatterjee (presently deceased) both are valued customer of O.P. Bank but as O.P. has been informed by Advocate Notice regarding some dispute with the impugned cheque and the matter has already been placed to the Court for adjudication, hence O.P. have no other option but to keep THE COMPLAINANT'S account on HOLD, until the dispute is resolved between The Complainant and legal heirs of said Nisith Kumar Chatterjee. Hence the instant case basically have no legs to stand upon and is liable to be rejected.
The opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay took his last breath on 10.02.2017 at the age of about 88 years leaving behind his three brothers including the complainant and one sister as his legal heirs and his landed property at Ananta Pandit Lane, Ward No. 15, Holding No. 1505 (New), under Police Station and Municipal Corporation area of Chandernagore. All the brothers and sister had a very cordial relation with each other and they were keenly attached with each other's affair. Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay was taken to Chennai for his treatment by his brother/s and he was also treated at Netaji Subhas Bose Nursing Home at Agarpara.
That, at the old age of 88 years Nishith Kumar Chatterjee Chattopadhyay had been suffering from sundry old aged disease and for remaining under continue treatment, Nishith Kumar Chatterjee Chattopadhyay had a mald servant i.e. the petitioner /complainant of this case, who was appointed by these O.P. No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 with their mutual consent/siblings /successors/heirs of the patient/deceased Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay during his life time for looking after his old age. Due to his older age he used to confine him into his home merely having close relation with his brothers and sister. But all the treatment and take-care was under the supervision of these O.P.
That, on 02.01.2017 the complainant was informed by the appointed maid i.e. the complaianat Bibhabini Madhu that Nishith kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay met an accident due to fall in bathroom as a result he got injured and was admitted in NEW UNITED NURSING HOME, 230, Durga Charan Rakshit Road, Narkeltala, Chhabighar, (near Kalidas Chotuspathy), P.O. + P.S. Chandernagore, District: Hooghly on 02.01.2017 at 06.55 P.M. in Intensive Care Unit and Discharged on Risk Bond on 05.01.2017 at 11.59 A.M.(wrongly printed 05/01/2016).
That, just after being discharged from NEW UNITED NURSING HOME he was shifted to UNITED NURSING HOME COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Barabazar, Chandernagore and admitted thereat on the very same date 05.01.2017 at 1.15 P.M. it means it took hardly one hour sixteen minutes time to maintain the formal official paraphernalia, paper works and making arrangement for admission of Nishith kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay i.e. from ICU of NEW UNITED NURSING HOME to UNITED NURSING HOME COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. and he was discharged from UNITED NURSING HOME CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. on 17.01.2017 at 10.00 A.Μ.
That, later Nishith kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay was re-admitted in UNITED NURSING HOME CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, Barabazar, Chandernagore on 23.01.2017 and was discharged on 10.02.2017 at 3.30 P.M. after his death at 12.05 P.M.
Be it needed to be mentioned that one Dr. Shantanu Mukherjee was the conducting doctor of both the institutions under whose signature all these three documents and may be other documents also, were prepared as it appears by open view.
That, on 14.02.2017 a letter on the Letter-Head pad of Ram Padarth Thakur, Advocate, Chandernagore Court was submitted to The Authorities Concerned of UNITED NURSING HOME CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., which was received by the office of the Authority on 14.02.2017 at 3.10 P.M. and in reply of that letter the R.M.O. Dr. Shantanu Mukherjee informed a little to the Ld. Advocate Sri Ram Padarth Thakur vide his epistle dated 15.02.2017 stating the fact of the admission and discharge of the patient Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay, along with attached xerox copies of two Bed-Head Ticket but refused to supply any other document/s on some pretext, rather confessed that this complainant Bibhabini Madhu had already collected all the other documents pertaining to the admission, treatment, discharge and death of the patient Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay. It was a collusive stratagem cunningly played by this complainant and her accomplices for some unlawful purpose / gain with some ulterior motive.
That, just after getting the information of the death of Nishith Kumar Chatterjee the O.P. No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 reached to the address of their deceased brother where they found that this complainant, her family members and som new developed relatives (as claimed by her at that moment) have intrude in the residential house of their deceased brother at Durga Charan Rakshit Road (South) Chandernagore, Hooghly and captured it unauthoritatively. The O.P. protested the wrong activities of accusation of this complainant and these old O.P. had to be heckled by the wrong doers. On query by the O.P. about such unauthorised trespassing in the residential unit of their brother, this complainant and her so called relatives associates /aide turned berserk and behaved unbridled as bellicose. The O.P. were spell bound but obstinated to find the origin of such changed demeanour of the complainant then this complainant shown a Registered Deed of Gift Being No. 060200023 for the year 2017 to the O.P. No. 2, 3,4 and 5. Having no option the O.P. had to file the Title Suit referred above for cancellation of the impugned Deed which suit is still pending.
That, after collecting the Certified Copy of the said Impugned Deed of Gift the malafide intention of all Bibhabini Madhu and her associates came in light as follows:-
A) the said Deed of Gift was typed on 04.01.2017, just on the second day of the accident of the executant;
B) the said Deed of Gift was registered at the Office of District Sub-Registrar II, Hooghly at Chinsurah, though the local Office of Additional-District-Sub- Registrar, Chandernagore is in vicinity of the address of Nishith Kumar Chatterjee;
C) Just in the first paragraph of the contents it is typed' AAMAAR KONO NIJO BHRAATAA BHOGINI NAAI' (means the executant has no brother and sister) which is utterly untrue;
D) The said Deed of Gift was presented for Registration on 05.01.2017 at 18.11 hrs. at the private residence by this complainant / accused Smt. Bibhabini Madhu the so called Donee of the Impugned-Deed;
E) The said Deed of Gift was purported to be executed by Nishith Kumar Chattopadhyay by putting his Left Thumb Impression and the impression was taken by the pen of her another associate Dilip Ranjan Chaudhuri who claims to draft the said Impugned-Deed, to identify the Executant, to read over and explained the contents of the said Deed to Nishith Kumar Chattopadhyay,
F) The execution of the said Impugned-Deed bears the signatures of witnesses Bhaskar Sarkar, and Barun Ghosh Dastidar who claim to be present at the time of presentation of the Deed at the residence by the deceased:
G) The said Impugned Deed of Gift was registered on 06.01.2017.
H) The particular Non Judicial Stamp Paper valued Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) was purchased on 03.01.2017 just on the very next date of accident of the executant Nithish Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay,
That, it clearly proves, the cheating, misrepresentation, mispersonification, forgery of documents, suppression of truth, dishonest and fraudulent execution of Deed of transfer of property by false statement of consideration, have been well deliberately committed by Bibhabini Madhu and her associated in apre- ordained strategy in order to grab the landed property, residential accommodation and other assets of Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay of which the complainant and his other brothers and sister are entitled to avail.
That, when Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay was admitted in Nursing Home since 02.01.2017 to 17.01.2017 and again since 23.01.2017 till his death on 10.02.2017 it is quite impossible to execute a Deed on 05.01.2017 at 18.11 hrs at any private residential address and to put his L.T.I. on the said Impugned-Deed.
That, Nishith Kumar Catterjee @ Chattopadhyay (since deceased), the brother of the complainant. was a retired Engineer of Central Government under Indian Ordnance Factory who always used to put his signature on documents.
That, the brother of the complainant Nishith Kumar Chatterjee Chattopadhyay (since deceased) had a Savings Bank Account No. 20665512822 with Allahabad Bank, Chandannagar Branch. The O.P. apprehended by the wrongful activity of this complainant that there is every possibility of usurping the amount of Nishith Kumar Chatterjee (since deceased) from his account. With a view prevent the illegal transfer of money, if any to be happened, from the account of Nishith Kumar Chatterjee, the O.P. served a letter Dated 14.02.2017 to the particular Branch of the Bank through Ld. Advocate, Sri Ram Padarth Thakur of Chandernagore Court with a request of ensuring the complainant that no amount be transferred from the account of the deceased brother of the complainant to any other account of any accused.
That, in reply of the letter to Bank, the Ld. Advocate Sri Abhiroop Ghosh on behalf of the Bank informed that Bibhabini Madhu had already produced an Account Payee Cheque alleged to be issued by Nishith Kumar Chatterjee (since deceased) amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac) only on 10.02.2017 and the amount was transferred/credited to the Savings bank Account No. 50372051335 of the same Bank in the same Branch of Bibhabini Madhu. But on being informed by the O.P. that the Account Holder Nishith Kumar Chatterjee died on 10.02.2017 at 12.05 P.M., the amount though credited to the Account of Bibhabini Madhu, it was kept HOLD and she was not permitted to withdraw any amount from the said account.
That, the fact is this, the cheque is also impugned cheque which had been collected by this complainant Bibhabini Madhu by applying fraud, force, cheating, ploy, deception, misrepresentation, coercion, cruelty, arrogance, so on and so forth. This complainant did not leave any stone unturned to grab / seize/snatch/take hold of all the chattels and tenements of Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay by hook or by crook. Had the O.P. No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 not been alert and attentive in time, the complainant Bibhabini Madhu would have played some other complicated role which could hardly be solved by the process of law. Even it has been delayed to take proper step in time, as the O.P. who appointed Bibhabini Madhu as a maid to their brother (since deceased) could not expect that she shall bite them back in such an inhuman manner caring less existence of GOD & the fate of their wrongful activity. Voraciousness makes a man such a blind which cannot be cataracted.
Counter Claim:-
A) That, the O.P. No. 2. Sri Pratip Kumar Chatterejee, O.P. No. 3. Sri Pratyush Kumar Chattopadhyay, O.P. No. 4. Sri Prodosh Kumar Chatterjee are brothers and O.P. 5 Smt. Aindrila Bose (Chatterjee) is the sister of the deceased Nithish Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay with full blooded relation, hence they are the only legal heirs and successors of the deceased according to Indian Succession Act 1925.
B) That, as they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay who expired intestate unmarried practically no question of any issue of his own, hence these O.P. are only entitled to procure all the movable and immovable properties of Late Nithish Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay who expired on 10.02.2017 leaving behind only these O.P. three brothers and one sister.
C) That, as the O.P. are only claimants of all the chattels and tenements of their deceased brother Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay so they have every right, successive title, interest and possession over all the movable and immovable properties of the deceased and there is no any impediment to avail all these properties by these O.P. under any provision of law of this soil.
D) That, the so called impugned Deed of Gift which has been got registered by this complainant Bibhabini Madhu in her name practicing fraudulent ways and the impugned Cheque amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac) collected by the same complainant Bibhabini Madhu applying forgery, fraud, force, freaky procedure is also liable not to be encashed in favour of the complainant Bibhabini Madhy in her account. Because there is no any cogent, convincing and rational ground of transferring that huge amount of money by Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay on the date of his death in the name of her maid Bibhabini Madhu. Even after reflecting deeply and beyond all assumption there is no any reasonibility of transferring the huge amount by issuing any cheque in the name of the complaianat Bibhabini Madhu.
E) That, as such there is no any ground of passing any order in favour of the complainant directing the O.P. No. 1 to make any payment of that cheque in question or to transfer any amount in her account from the account of the deceased Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay basing on that cheque.
F) That, it is the most legitimate claim and submissive prayer of the O.P. No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac) only of that Cheque of that cheque which had been collected by the complainant Bibhabini Madhu from Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay and the amount has already been credited to her Savings Bank Account No. 50372051335 of Allahabad Bank, Chandernagore Branch be remitted to the Savings Bank Account No. 20665512822 of the deceased Nishith Kumar Chatterjee @ Chattopadhyay, as the legal successors may claim / avail the same through the process of law.
G) That, for the ends of justice and proper / minute examination of the case it is further claimed by the O.P. No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 that the impugned cheque which had been produced by the complainant / petitioner before the O.P. No. 2 and the O.P. No. 2 has credited the amount of that impugned cheque in the account of the complainant / petitioner be ordered to be produced by the O.P. no. 2 before the Ld. Forum.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
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 and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocates of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted points of considerations, there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny of the materials of this case record and also for scanning the evidence on record. So this District Commission after going through the material of this case record and also after making scrutiny of the evidence on record finds that the legal heirs of deceased Nitish Kumar Chatterjee alias Chattopadhyay has also filed one writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta and the said writ petition no. is W.P. no.18674(W) of 2017 against this complainant and others but the complainant has totally suppressed this matter. It is also reflected from the evidence on record that the legal heirs of said deceased Nitish Kumar Chatterjee alias Chattopadhyay filed one civil suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chandannagar against this complainant for cancellation of deed of Gift and the said case no. is T.S. No.256 of 2017 but the complainant has suppressed this matter before this District Commission inspite of having knowledge of the same. It is also evident from the case record that the legal heirs of deceased Nitish Kumar Chatterjee alias Chattopadhyay has initiated / lodged FIR at the Chandannagar police station against the present complainant on the allegation of committing fraud, forgery etc. but this matter has also suppressed by the complainant before this District Commission. In this regard, it is very important to note that such suppression of fact is clearly depicting that the complainant has not come before this District Commission in clean hand. As the complainant has not come before this District Commission in clean hand, the complainant is not entitled to get any equitable relief. Thus it is crystal clear that this case is not maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law.
In this case the complainant has prayed before this District Commission for passing direction upon the OP-1 to operate regularly the bank account of complainant and to withdraw money from the said account. This matter is clearly reflecting that the complainant is seeking declaratory relief from this District Commission. But fact remains that such type of declaratory relief can only be filed before the Hon’ble Civil Court and Ld. Civil Court has the jurisdiction of granting such relief according to the provisions of Specific Relief Act. This matter is also reflecting that this case is also not maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.
It has already been stated / observed by this District Commission that in this case the OPs have raised the allegation of committing the offence of cheating, fraud, forgery etc. but in this regard it is important to note that such type of allegations of fraud, cheating etc. cannot be adjudicated by this District Forum/Commission by way of conducting summary trial. This factor is also reflecting that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, in this case the complainant side has not prayed before this District Commission to prove that the signature on the cheque leaf was of Nitish Kumar Chatterjee alias Chattopadhyay and in this regard there is no prayer for sending the documents before the finger print expert and / or hand writing expert.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case and this case is not maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law.
As this case is not maintainable and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case, this District Commission finds no reason / justification to discuss the other points of considerations which have been adopted in this case.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that this complaint case being no. 100 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order is passed as to cost.
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 and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
