District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present          

Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee              - President

Miss. Swapna Saha                            - Member

Shri S. Ganguli                                    - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 51/2014

Smt. Keshabala Barman,

W/o Late Indranath Barman

Vill.: Kurmail

PS: Kamarpara, P.S.: Balurghat,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur                                    ………Complainant

V-E-R-S-U-S

1.   The Branch Manager,

      Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Trimohine Branch

      Vill. & PO; Trimohini, PS: Hili

      Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur                 

2.   The Chairman,

      District Primary School Council, Dakshin Dinajpur

      Vill. & PO; Beltala Park, PS: Balurghat

      Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur                 

3.   The Sub Inspector of School, Hili Circle,

      Vill. & PO; Hili, PS: Hili

      Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur                 

For complainant          …………- Shri Prosenjit Biswas, Ld. Adv.                

For OP No. 1              ………… - Shri Santanu Dey, Ld. Adv.         

For OP Nos. 2 & 3      ………… - None        

Date of Filing                                       : 01.12.2014

Date of Disposal                                 : 14.07.2015

                                                                                                Contd…P/2

Judgment & Order  dt. 14.07.2015

            The case of the complainant is that one Nilkanta Barman who was resident of village Kurmail, Kamarpara, Dakshin Dinjapur died living behind his widow mother Keshbala Barman aged about 80 years. During the lifetime of said Nilkanta Barman he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Primary School of Naopara Junior Basic School and while he was in service he appointed his mother Keshabala Barman as his lawful nominee in his service book. Unfortunately, Nilkanta Barman died intestate on 7.7.2012 and the complainant being only legal heir of said Nilkanta Barman and received the service benefits from the District Primary Council, Dakshin Dinajpur and the Council paid the amount of P.F., Gratuity etc. of deceased Nilkanta Barman to tune of Rs.79,573/- by an account payee cheque in the name of Keshabala Barman on 9.10.2012.

            After receiving the said cheque the complainant deposited the same at Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Trimohini Branch whereby the complainant is maintaining her account and said cheque was honoured the amount was credited in her account.

            It is specific allegation of the OP No.1 that the OP No.1 deliberately deducted the amount of Rs.86,433/- from the account of the complainant the said amount was transferred and adjusted with the loan account of Nilkanta Barman. Though, it was brought to the notice of the OP No.1 to remove the illegality committed by him and restore the amount in her account of the complainant subsequently, a notice was served upon the OP No.1 but since no action was taken for which the complainant had to file this case.  

            OP No.1 has contested the case of filing a written objection whereby denied all the material allegations of the complainant. It was specifically stated by OP No.1 that son of the complainant i.e. Nilkanta

                                                                                                Contd…P/3

Barman applied for a loan of Rs.1 lakh before the authority of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Trimohini Branch under Dakshin Dinajpur for the purpose of purchase of a land and accordingly loan was sanctioned in the name of Nilkanta Barman. Bikash Chandra Mahato and Sunil Chandra Mahato stood as guarantors in respect of loan obtained by Nilkanta Barman. Subsequently, after death of Nilkanta Barman the complainant became the only heir and she used to maintain the account in the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Trimohini Branch and she deposited a cheque amount to Rs.79,573/- in her account. The guarantors of the loan account Nilkanta Barman with consent of the complainant made written application before the bank to deduct the outstanding loan amount from SB account of the complainant and the complainant being an illiterate lady also gave her consent in deducting loan amount from her account which she got due to death of her son Nilkanta Barman. The question of adjustment of PF amount and gratuity does not arise. Since the amount remain due from the said deceased Nilkanta Barman and the amount which the complainant received due to death of her son and with her consent along with guarantors the said amount was adjusted and as such it was paid by the OP No.1 and that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief from this Forum and to dismiss the same accordingly.

            Considering the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be determined:-

1. Whether deceased Nilkanta Barman obtained loan from OP No.1 for purchasing land and the amount was advanced by the OP-1?
2. Whether the guarantors in respect of the said loan only OP No.1 for adjustment the amount received by the complainant on death of her son Nilkanta Barman?
3. Weather any illegality was committed by OP No.1 in adjustment of the amount with SB account of the complainant?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoiding repetition of facts.

                                                                                                Contd…P/4

From the materials on record it appears that Nilkanta Barman was a primary school teacher. Admittedly he was bachelor living behind his mother only legal heir. It is an admitted fact that Nilkanta Barman after his demise the mother being only legal heir of said deceased Nilkanta Barman received the amount because of death of said Nilkanta Barman. It is also admitted fact that Nilkanta Barman at the time of obtaining loan from the OP No.1, furnished guarantors for security of the said loan. After his demise the guarantors in writing informed the OP No.1 to adjust the amount which will be received by the complainant due to death of said Nilkanta Barman. It is also admitted fact that the complainant being mother of deceased Nilkanta Barman an illiterate lady gave her oral consent to adjust the amount which she received on the death of her son and gave her consent to adjust the amount credited in her account. Accordingly after consideration of all these aspects the bank adjusted the amount of the complainant which she deposited after getting amount on death of her son Nilkanta Barman.

            It is relevant to mention here that during the life time of Nilkanta Barman, he took a loan from the bank and he at the time of his death the property inherited by his mother the complainant being only the legal heir of deceased Nilkanta Barman. The question of adjustment amount of PF and Gratuity cannot be said to be concerned for the bank particularly when the guarantors wrote to the OP No.1 for the adjustment of the amount from SB account of the complainant and the complainant also gave her consent to the said adjustment. It is also admitted fact that the OP No.1 acted bonafide followed instructions of guarantors with respect to the loan taken by deceased Nilkanta Barman and the complainant being the mother who received the amount after death of her son was duty bound to repay loan amount. Therefore, we hold that the OP No.1 did not commit any illegality for the adjustment of the amount in respect of the amount lying in the account of the complainant and bank adjusted the amount with the loan amount and the complainant inherited the money

                                                                                                Contd…P/5

due to death of her son and the guarantors who are responsible for repaying the loan in case of non-payment of deceased Nilkanta Barman. The complainant also gave her consent in the adjustment of the amount with respect to the amount credited in her account which was received after demise of her son. Therefore, we hold that the bank acted bonafide and no illegality was committed which may attract the interference of this Forum. Accordingly, we hold that the case filed by the complainant is misconceived one and the same is to be dismissed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it has got not merit to be entertained.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

            that CC No. 51/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the OP No.1 and ex-parte against the OP Nos. 2 & 3.

            Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

            Dictated & corrected

            ………Sd/-….…….                                                    

            (Sambhunath Chatterjee)                                                      

                    President                                                            

            We concur,

            ……Sd/-..……                                                            ………Sd/-……..

              (S. Saha)                                                         (S. Ganguli)                       

               Member                                                               Member

1. Date when free copy was issued                         ……………………
2. Date of application for certified copy       ……………………
3. Date when copy was made ready            ……………………
4. Date of delivery                                        ……………………

FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]

1. Mode of dispatch                                ……………………
2. Date of dispatch                                  ……………………

-x-