This is a case for claim and compensation.
The complaint’s case briefly stated is that he deposited Rs.20,000/- to open a joint account with his former wife Rita Das vide A/C No. RIP-1130 with Malloabhum Gramin Bank, Geonkhali Branch on 5.6.1995 for 6 years. The said RIP matured on 5.06.2001 (maturity value Rs.40,660/-). Subsequently, he availed of loan to the tune of Rs.3,000/- on 3 occasions being LATd-824, 864 and 1123 aainst the above RIP. Later on their marriage tie was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by the Lok Adalat on 07.09.2001. The Complainant submits that in spite of specific instruction for non-payment of the maturity value, the bank most illegally and arbitrarily effected payment of the entire maturity amount of the said RUIP to smt. Rita Das. The Complainant tried his best to recover his half of share of the maturity value but was in vain. So, he has filed this case seeking 59% of the maturity value of RIP NO. 1130 and compensation.
The OP No. 1&2 contested the case by filing a written objection wherein he denied the material allegation of the case and also stated that the case is not maintainable. He admitted that the Complainant opened a Joint account along with his wife Rita Das whose maturity value was Rs.40,660/-. In course of time, they availed of and repaid loans against lien of the aforesaid RIP No. 1130 on three occasions. He also submits that it is practice in the bank that if the certificate is discharged once by the A/C holder on the reverse of the original certificate on receiving loan, same will continue and the borrower need not discharge the certificate again and again for receiving further loan/s and or receiving payment on maturity/premature encashment. In the instant case, signatures of the customers were obtained twice and the third set of signatures was taken for final payment. Which requires no stamp and thus, the bank was legally right in paying it to either of the account holder and acted in line with the bank’s prevailing practice. He further states that all the signatures of the Complainant on the reverse of the RIP receipt No. 1130 were genuine. The complainant did not issue any stop payment instruction to the branch.If he was desirous of making stop payment. He had to pay Rs.10/- to the bank as incidental charge. The Op also submits that the Complainant once alleged that the signature on the reverse side of the RIP was not genuine. Accordingly, he has asked to deposit
Rs.5,000/- which is required to verify signature as per norms of the bank and the Complainant deposited the same. However, afterwards, he again filed a petition to return the said money and declined to verify the signature. As per his request, the money was refunded to him on the same day, under the circumstances, he prays for acceptance of the Written Objection.
This case was also contested by OP No. 3 by filing a written objection wherein she stated that marriage tie between the Complainant and herself was dissolved on the basis of solenama and the Complainant has no right to claim the amount. The Complainant himself signed on the back side of the certificate and he has filed this case with an intention to harass her. Therefore she prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision
On the basis of the pleadings of concerned parties, the following points are taken up for consideration.
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the Complainant entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decision
Point No.1- It is admitted by the OP that the Complainant had an account with the bank and the same has been discharged by making payment. So admittedly, it can be said that the complainant was a consumer under the OP No. 1. As such, being a consumer, he as every right to file case. If he feels aggrieved by ay such act of the OP No.1. So the case is maintainable in its present form.
Points No.2. It is the case of the Complainant that he is a bona fide customer of the bank and prays for direction to pay him 50% of the maturity value of RIP No. 1130 and compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.
The OP No.1 denied any deficiency in service on his part and prays for dismissal of the case.
The OP No.3 claims that the Complainant has filed this case to harass her. So, she prays for rejection of the case.
Heard Ld. Counsels of all concerned and perused the documents.
On going through the documents we find that the petitioner himself has admitted that the signature on the reverse of the Cash Certificate was his own (Ext.1). However, we find from the written statement of OP No. 1 that the Complainant himself disowned the signature on the back side of the Cash Certificate and deposited Rs.5,000/- to verify the signature (though he later on backed out and asked the OP bank to return the money). Now the question is what was the rationale of such action? Was there any bad intention? If so, what was that? It is clear that he tried to mislead all concerned by such dubious act, which cannot be supported under any circumstances.
We observe from the Solenama that the Complainant agreed to pay the entire amount lied in the OP bank (including interest) to the OP No.3 as a condition of getting divorce. Therefore, it is irrelevant, whether the Bank paid the same through the Complainant or directly to the Op No.2 who was also one of the Joint holders of the Certificate in question. Above all, the Complainant himself put his signature to discharge the same.
The Complainant claims that the OP bank paid money in spite of his specific instruction not to do so. The OP submits that if a consumer wants to make stop payment, he requires to deposit Rs.10/- as incidental charge. However, the Complainant has not done so. So olo0ng he has not complied with bank rules, the OP bank is not legally bound to act upon any such request, if at all made. So we do not see ay latches on the part of the Op bank on this score.
The report of Banking Ombudsman (EXT.3) clearly shows that after consideration for all matters they did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
After careful consideration of above facts we did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
Point No.3. On the basis of foregoing discussions and materials on record we say that the complainant fails to establish his case.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed However, considering the circumstances, we are not imposing any cost on the Complainant.
