Orissa

Rayagada

CC/350/2015

Mandangi Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, SBI, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Dasara Ravi Prsad

29 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 350 / 2015.                                           Date.      29   .     5  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Mandangi Prasad, S/O: Late M.Sukuru, Jenjilibadi, Po  :Penta,  Distt:Rayagada  (Odisha)                                                            .                       …. Complainant.

Versus.

The Branch Manager, State Bank  of India, At/Po   : J.K.Pur,  Dist: Rayagada.    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri  D. Ravi Prasad, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri  N.N.Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non disbursement of amount from the S.B.account in favour of  the complainant as a legal heir for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.P  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. Hence the O.P    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the joint  S.B  account   No. 30323919649  was in the name  of Mandangi Sukuru and  Mandangi  Suki. (Copies of the pass book  first page is in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).  Both are  expired leaving behind the complainant to succeed them and  accordingly the complainant being  their legal heir  and successor succeeded to their  Estates and became rightful claimant to the amount  due in their joint S.B. Account.(Copies of the  death certificate of  Mandangi Vendi and Mandangi  Sukru  are in the file which are marked as Annexure -2 & Annexure-3). 

The complainant also filed  legal heir  certificate which was issued by the competent authority  which is in the file marked  As Annexure-IV).  The complainant also filed  an affidavit for non  matching the name   between   S.B. pass book and  Death certificate.  In  S.B. pass book the name mentioned  as Mandangi Suki  but in the death certificate issued in the name of  Manadangi Vendi (Copies   of the affidavit is in the file which is marked as Annexure-5).

Due non  matching the name   between   S.B. pass book and  Death certificate the O.P. refused to pay the amount to the legal heir. Hence this case.

 The O.P. in their  written version  para No.1  contended that   there are some guide line for the bank prescribed  by the R.B.I to follow at the time of opening of the account and also at the time of payment  to the legal heir of account holder.  The legal heir has to produce the  documents  written below. Voter Identity card/ Adhar card/PAN card/ Driving licence/Passport/NRE job  card/Original  death certificate in the name of the account holder.   

The O.P. in their  written version  para No.3  contended that   as per the banking rules and regulation  nominee is the only person who is entitled to all the benefits of the deceased. 

The O.P. in their  written version  para No.4  contended that   the complainant has produced the death certificate which was issued in  favour of Mandangi Vendi. The name of the account holder is Mandangi Suki. The bank has to follow the R.B.I guide line at the time of disbursement of  deceased account and the bank  can not release money to  any body without proper identified   documents    which are necessary for the bank

The O.P. in their  written version  para No.5  contended  that  the complainant to produce just and proper documents on which  the name of the account holder’s name must be there.

The O.P. in their  written version  para No.6  contended  that  the complainant may please be directed to produce the death certificate in name of the account holder i.e.  Mandangi Suki before the  branch to release the money in  favour  of legal heir.

Admittedly the S.B. A/C. was in the name of Mandangi Suki but the complainant was filed the death certificate in the name of  Mandangi Vendi which  are confusion to the forum to pass  actual order.

Hence this forum feel the complainant to approach Civil court  for redressal of his grievance as  District Consumer  forum  was not proper forum due to comprehensive  evidence of the parties.

Again   this forum observed  the  case involves complicated  question of facts .

While considering the grievances of the complainant  we rely  the decision. It is held and reported  in CPR  1991  (1) page -2  the Hon’ble  National Commission  where in   observed  “Section 2(i) ©- complaint petition- complicated  issues of fact involving    taking of oral and documentary evidence – cannot   be determined under this act- Civil  suit proper remedy- the procedure for disposal of  complaints   under the act  has been laid down in  the  Section – 13   of act sub-section –II,  III of the section shows  beyond doubt  that the statute does not  contemplated the determination  of complicated issues of  fact involving   taking of elaborate oral evidence and  adducing voluminous  documents  evidence  and detailed  scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. The Hon’ble  Commission   further observed   It is true that  the forums  constituted under the  act are vested with the  power to  examine witness on oath and to  order discovery and production of documents.  But  such power is to be exercised  in case  where the   issues involve are simple, such  as the  defective quality  of any goods  purchased or any short coming  are inadequacy in the   quality  nature of manner of performance  of service  which the respondent  as contracted to perform for consideration.  The  present case  can not be determined without   taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence. 

On perusal of the  complaint petition and written version filed by the parties  this forum completely  agreed with the views taken by the  O.P     in their written version and documents  filed in support of this case. Thus,   it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is not entitled  any relief from this forum.

In our considered view  the complainant should  produce just and proper  document viz: Death report  of the deceased account holder Mandangi Suki  in lieu  of Mandangi Vendi  if the complainant be produced  the proper document (death report  of Mandangi  Suki before the  O.P.(Bank) . In turn the O.Ps directed  to take proper steps to dispose the matter  in favour of the nominee/legal heir/complainant of the deceased  account holder with proper identification of the claimant  with immediate effect, other wise the   complainant is at  liberty to agitate the issue before the appropriate court of law.

            “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay  as reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583   the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   the above  point.

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition stands dismissed.        The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed off.

           

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this             29th. Day of    May,  2018.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                             President