FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
Complainant files this case under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.As per the complain, four numbers of term deposit certificates stand in the name of Anil Kumar Chatterjee ( since deceased ) are lying at Indian Overseas Bank, Kasba, Gold Park branch. During the life time of said Anil Chtterjee, who is the brother-in-law of the present petitioner, invested money with the O.P bank and purchased four numbers of term deposit certificates.As per submission of the petitioner , in the said certificatesas well as in the bank record , the name of the petitioner has been recorded as nominee.as per ther complaint , said Anil Kumar chatterjee died on 30/12/2016 and his wife was died on 26/6/2006 and they died issuless. The After the death of wife of said Anil Chatterjee, he was look after by the petitioner and her family members and Anil chatterjee told the petitioner that he made the petitioner as the nominee of his deposits. According to the petitioner, it is within the knowledge of the O.P bank that she is the nominee of the said term deposits but when the petitioner approached the bank with regard to disbursement of the matured amount in respect of the term deposits but the O.P paid no heed to that for which the petitioner sent letter dated 8/9/2 and legal notice dated 5/1/21 but all were in vain.
Being compelled by the situation the petitioner again sent a reminder on 28/1/21 but the O.P intentionally failed to make any reply and did not take any initiative to make payment of the matured amount of the said term deposits to the complainant.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to disburse the matured amount alongwith appropriate interest in respect of the said four term deposits ; an order of injunction directing the O.P not to disburse the matured amount in favour of any third party except the present petitioner;an order of temporary injunction and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- for litigation cost.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant has filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of complainant at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
Specific case of the petitioner is that , her brother in law had his joint account with the present petitioner and said Mr. Chatterjee invested money before the bank by purchase of four numbers of term deposit certificate on 24/08/2013 being numbers 151704501300832, 151704501300833, 151704501300834 and 15170450130835 lying at Indian Overseas Bank, Kasba, Goldpark branch.
Said Mr. Anil KumarChatterjee died on 30/12/2016 and on his death the present petitioner claimed as the nominee of the scheduled noted deposits.
Her specific case is that the O.P even being aware that the petitioner is the nominee of the aforesaid term deposit certificates claimed to disburse the matured amount in her favour the O.P along with its staff did not pay any heed to that effect rather kept silent.
Finding no other alternative the petitioner served one letter requesting to the O.P to disburse the matured amount and also its procedure to obtain the same. The O.P being conspicuously silent relating to disbursement of the matured amount a letter of advocate was sent on 05/01/2021 which also produced no fruitful result. A separate notice was issued on 28/01/2021 to the O.P of which also has not produced any fruitful result which gives rise to the instant proceeding for the reliefs mentioned in the petition itself.
The branch manager, Indian Overseas Bank ( the O.P) entered his appearance by filing vakalatnama praying for time there in for filing written version on 27/10/2021 but ultimately for taking no further steps the present case has been fixed for ex parte hearing vide order no. 4 dated 26/11/2021.
The pertinent question herein lies whether the petitioner is a consumer ?
Sec 2( 7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, defines the word “ consumer “ laying down there in to be a person who buys any goods for consideration and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised when such use is made with the approval of such person. This commission has also taken into consideration of section 42 of the Act which defines “ service “ which means service of any description which is made available to potential users but not limited to the facilities in connection with banking .
In order to substantiate her claim in respect of four term deposit certificates the petitioner has filed photocopy of Aadhaar card of her brother-in-law , voter id card, the PAN, the death certificate. She has also filed photocopies of four deposit receipts, the opposite side of each of the term deposit receipts reveals that those four term deposits have been renewed from 22/08/14 to 22/08/2017 and a perusal of the same reveals that Mr. Anil Chatterjee ( since deceased ) by his own handwriting noted on those certificates to renew the same lastly on 19/9/16 stating there in to renew the entire amount for twelve months and that is the reason why all those four receipts have been renewed upto 22/8/2017.
This commission has eagerly made scrutiny of the documents referred to here in above which, no doubt, apparently indicate that no person has been made nominee in the term deposit certificates. That apart, that the petitioner herself has not been able to show by any documentary evidence that she is the nominee as claimed by her in respect of the certificates. More so, no scrap of document has been submitted by the petitioner has been produced to show that she is the only legal heir in order to claim as nominee in respect of the above certificates.
In fine, there appears no other alternative but to hold that the petitioner has miserably failed to show that she is the consumer relation to her claim for the above certificates and hence the only conclusion is that the present petioner cannot be termed as “ consumer “ in respect of the certificates claimed by her which ultimately leads this commission to hold that this issue be decided in the negative.
In view of above discussion it is needless to discuss the other issues.
All the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the Complaint case no 177 of 2021 be and the same stands dismissed ex parte with no order 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 The word file is drafted and corrected by me.
(Minakshi Chakraborty)
Member
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
