1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that his father-in-law and father (since adopted son) namely Rabi Hontal was serving as a Helper under OP.3 who died on 25.5.1992 while in service and the death benefit was paid to the complainant and his wife through A/c. No.137 which was operated under OP.2 out of which Rs.1, 10,000/- was converted into a Term Deposit and Rs.14, 014/- remained in the said account against the family pension.  It is submitted that the said account was transferred to OP.1 vide O/C No.11312261414 and ever since the TDR and family pension amount is missing.  The complainant approached the Ops several times and issued registered notice through his Advocate on 25.5.2016 to release the amount in his favour but they did not reply to the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops 1 & 2, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the said Ops to refund the TDR amount of Rs.1, 10,000/- besides pension amount of Rs.14, 014/- and to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that no such A/c. No. 137 or any amount was ever transferred to OP.1 vide O/C No.11312261414 but the A/c. No. 11312261414 in the name of the complainant was closed prior to the year, 2011 and another A/c. No.35554048465 in the name of Madhab Pradhan was opened with OP.1 on 05.02.2016 and there is no relation between the two accounts or a/c. No.137     of SBI, Sunabeda Branch.  It is contended that the complainant has not furnished any information regarding alleged A/c. No.137 of Sunabeda Branch or its transfer to OP.1 in order to know as to who was the accounts holder and the deposits involved to that accounts and without disclosing the materials facts, the complainant has claimed that the TDR and Family Pension amount is missing.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant has admitted about the transfer of A/c. No.137 to OP.2 and as per banking regulation, the documents relating to closed accounts shall be retained for maximum period of 10 years.  As the alleged accounts relates to the year 1992, no such document is so far available with the bank and after 24 years by sending registered notice, the complainant has created a cause of action.  The OP also further contended that the complainant has not furnished any evidence in support of his allegation and thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The OP.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that as per record of the Company, a person namely Rabi Hontal was serving as Plumber in HAL, Sunabeda and he died in the year 1992 while in service.  The OP contended that the complainant has already admitted in his complaint that all the death benefits and dues have been paid to them through A/c. No.137 held at SBI, Sunabeda but the OP is not aware about the transfer of A/c from Sunabeda branch to Jeypore branch of SBI or missing of TDR and family pension amount from the bank.  It is further contended that the OP.3 was never in possession of the TDR or pension amount so as to return the same to the complainant and the personal file of the employee can be retained for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of superannuation/death etc.  As there is no allegation regarding settlement of benefits and specific admission of the complainant regarding release of benefits, the OP submitted that there is no fault on its part.  Thus the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.                     The complainant as well as OP.1 has filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant and the Ops 2 & 3 have also filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

6.                     In this case, the complainant stated that his father-in-law and father while in service under HAL (OP.3) died on 25.5.1992 and his death benefits were paid by OP.3 to the complainant and his wife through A/c. No.137 which was operative under OP.2.  Out of said benefits, Rs.1, 10,000/- was converted into term deposit and Rs.14, 014/- remained in the said account against the family pension.  Further the said account was transferred to OP.1 and since then the TDR and family pension amount is missing.  The OP.3 submitted that there is no allegation against them as the complainant has admitted that death benefits of Rabi Hontal have been paid by HAL authorities.  The OP No.2 also submitted that the complainant has no allegation against them as he has admitted that A/c No.137 has been transferred from their bank branch to OP.1.  The OP.1 in his counter stated that as the complainant has not furnished any details of deposit and transfer of account to their branch they faced problems and they have checked their books of account but did not find any such account of the complainant with them.

7.                     In the above circumstances, it was ascertained that the complainant has made only oral allegations without furnishing any accounts details to claim the reliefs.  There is absolutely no case, as we find, against Ops 2 & 3 as the complainant has not hired their services as because, the complainant has already admitted that the OP.3 has paid all the death benefits and the accounts under OP.2 has been transferred to OP.1.  The OP.1 stated that during a thorough verification of their books of account, they found one SB A/c bearing No.11312261414 in the name of the complainant which has been closed prior to the year, 2011 and the complainant has opened another A/c. with them vide No.35554048465 dt.05.2.2016 which has no link with any TDR or pension amount.  Hence it was clearly revealed that the OP.1 has tried its best to trace out the alleged TDR and pension amount said to be the complainant but could not find any such amount.  The complainant also has neither disclosed the material facts nor connected his relationship with Rabi Hontal by adducing any evidence.  As such we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.

8.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)