Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member:-<br /> The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant invoking the provision of deficiency of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Its brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims himself to be the only son and, hence, the sole legal heir of late Pira Barik and to succeed to all her property, assets etc.. The Complainant contends that, Rs.2,80,000/-(Rupees two lakh eighty thousand)only was withdrawn from account number SB 2044 of Pira Barik and transferred towards TDR in the name of the the said account holder Pira Barik. The Complainant claims from the Opposite Party Bank the deposit money of both accounts. The Complainant furnished various documents to the Opposite Party Bank claiming his title to the deposited amount through a Pleader notice Dt. 07/03/2007, which the Opposite Party received but remained silent over the matter. For this alleged deficiency of service of the Opposite Party, the Complainant claims Rs.5,500/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred)only towards compensation from the Opposite Party as well as release of all the amounts left by late Pira Barik, in his favour. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party, in its version. admits that, late Pira Barik wife of Sanatan Barik was an account holder bearing SB account No.2044 of the Opposite Party Bank. The Opposite Party contends that, the Complainant must base his claim and title to the money deposited in the accounts of Pira Barik by producing necessary documents, such as legal heir certificate proving that, he is the only successor of late Pira Barik. Since the Complainant failed to produce such documents and meet the necessary formalities the Opposite Party Bank could not release the amount in favour of the Complainant Tuladhar Barik. The Opposite Party further says that late Pira Barik withdrew her deposits from SB account NO.2044 and opened four accounts vide (1) I.D.R. A/c No.217144 for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only, (2) I.D.R. A/c No.217145 for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only, (3) I.D.R. A/c No.217146 for Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand)only and (4) S.T.D.R. A/c No.274939 for Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only and making one Taranisen Pradhan her nominee in all the said accounts. Now, only Rs.663/-(Rupees six hundred sixty three)only is left in SB account No.2044. Both Tuladhar Barik and nominee Taranisen Pradhan are claiming the amount in the account of Pira Barik. This matter requires adjudication by a competent Civil Court in the absence of which the Opposite Party Bank cannot release the amount deposited in the account of late Pira Barik. The Opposite Party also claims that the Complainant Tuladhar Barik is neither a customer nor a consumer of the Bank and the Opposite Party Bank has not committed any deficiency of service against him. The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> <br /> Perused the Complaint, the version of the Opposite Party and copies of the documents filed by the Parties in support of their respective case and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties admits the fact of the money in question deposited by late Pira Barik in SB Account No.2044 which was subsequently transferred to four numbers of different accounts by the depositor her-self wherein one Taranisen Pradhan is the nominee. The present Complainant as well as the nominee Taranisen Pradhan advance there claim to the deposited money. The Opposite Party could not release the money in favour of any of them because non of them came forward with a legal heir/succession certificate from a proper Court of Law. The title to the money can be decided only by a Civil Court and Civil Suit No. 186 of 2007 has already been pending in the Court of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bargarh, which is the proper authority to go into the matter and adjudicate upon the same. In view thereof, this Forum desists from making a finding on the complaint and drops the same.<br /> <br /> Complaint dropped.<br /> No cost.<br />