Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/27

Nunu Chand Sao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Nagan Ranjan Ganguly

21 Apr 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. to allow the complainant to operate the Bank account and further to direct the O.P. to pay interest @18% per annum on the money lying in his Bank account.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that his Bank account is being maintained in the branch of State Bank of India, Dugda Coal Washery Branch in which his retiral benefits like P.F., Gratuity, Pension etc total Rs. 4,10,941/- as on 25.06.2017 was in credit but O.P. Bank has intimated that account of the complainant has been freezed from 12.10.2013. Bank was intimated about death of Chamni Devi on 15.12.2015 but inspite of request complainant was not allowed to operate the account. Further case is that in the month of Nov.2013 when complainant went to operate the account then he was informed that account has been freezed on the basis of legal notice of an Advocate. Hence case has been filed with above mentioned relief.
3. W.S. has been filed mentioning therein that the complainant is Bank account holder of the O.Ps. who retired from service on 30.04.2015 and his retiral benefits have been deposited in his account No. 10644758457 but in compliance with the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Bokaro in connection with M.P. Case No. 96/94 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 36/2013 there was direction to pay 50% of P.F. and Gratuity amount along with other amount to the wife of complainant hence account was freezed but this fact has been suppressed by the complainant hence he has not come before this Commission with clean hands.
4.   On basis of pleadings of the parties only question for determination is that whether action taken by the O.P. in accordance with law or not ?
5.  It is very much clear from the complaint petition that complainant has suppressed the fact related to  order passed by the Court of Principal Judge family Court, Bokaro in connection with M.P. Case No. 96/94 and Cr. Misc. Case No. 36/2013 which have been filed by the wife of the complainant in respect to grant of maintenance. Further the complainant has not disclosed the position of Chamni Devi that what is relation of said lady with the complainant.  In this way complainant has approached this Commission by suppression of material facts who has not come with clean hands.
6.  It is also apparent that O.P. has acted in compliance with the order passed by the competent Court of law hence it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service by the O.P. and there is no cause of action of the case.
7.  Hence this case is being dismissed with observation that in case the complainant is having any grievance against the O.P. then he may approach the concerned Court for redressal of his grievance by whose order operation of the account has been withheld.