BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

                Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Monday, the 22^nd day of April, 2013

CC. No. 53 of 2012

Between:

Smt. K. Anasuya W/o late Veera Mallaiah Goud,

Aged: 60 years, Occ: House wife,

R/o H.No. 3-4-14, Opp: District Court,

Sangareddy Town, Medak District.                                ……Complainant                      

                   And

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of Hyderabad,

Branch Sangareddy, Medak District.                              ……Opposite party

This case came up for final hearing before us on 16.04.2013                                                                   in the presence of Sri J. Chandraiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri B. Gouri Reddy, Advocate for Opposite party and on hearing the arguments and perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Sri Patil Vithal Rao, President)

                   The case of the complainant, which has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in a nutshell, is that she and her husband late Veera Malla Goud were operating SB account jointly bearing No. 52127281527 with the opposite party bank and that after her husband’s demise on 15.02.2011, when she requested the bank to permit her to operate the said account, the bank did not allow for the same. The complainant has also contended that to her legal notice dated 01.10.2012 in this regard, the opposite party bank did not respond. Therefore she sought direction from this Forum against the opposite party to permit her to operate the SB account and also compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and damages of Rs. 20,000/- with costs on the ground of deficiency of service.

2.              The opposite party filed it’s written version by contending, interalia, that the complainant’s son approached the bank claiming the amounts covered by the SB account No. 52127281527 basing on a registered Will Deed allegedly executed by his late father in his favour on which the bank advised him to approach a civil court. The opposite party has further contended that two daughters of the complainant have filed civil suit in O.S. No. 176/2012 for partition against the complainant herein and her two sons on the file of the V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and obtained interim injunction vide I. A. No. 114/2012 restraining the defendants in the suit from withdrawing the amounts covered by the SB account in question and the amounts lying in other banks on the name of the deceased. For these reasons the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.              The complainant has filed her evidence affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A4 to substantiate her claim. The Chief Manager of the opposite party bank has filed her evidence affidavit and relied on Exs. B1 and B2, in defence.

                   The counsel for the complainant has submitted written arguments but the counsel for the opposite party did not submit any such arguments. Heard both the counsel.

4.          Now the point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank in claiming the reliefs by the complainant?

Point:

5.                It is not in dispute that the complainant and her husband late Veera Malla Goud were operating joint account with the opposite party bank. Ex. A1 is the original pass book in that regard. It seems after demise of the complainant’s husband on 15.02.2011 disputes arose between the family members resulting in filing of a civil suit in O.S. No. 176/2012 on the file of the V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy by two daughters of the deceased for partition of the family properties including the amounts covered by the SB account in question against the complainant herein and her two sons. In the said suit the court has also granted an exparte Ad-Interim temporary injection order vide I.A. No. 114/2012 restraining the complainant herein and her two sons from withdrawing the amounts from the bank accounts of the deceased Veera Malla Goud including the instant SB bank account. Ex. B2 is a copy of the said interim injunction order. During the course of arguments across the bar, both the learned counsel submitted that the said civil proceedings were still pending.

6.                  It is further to be noted that the complainant’s son, K. Rajeshwar Goud also approached the opposite on 02.07.2012 with an application claiming the amount covered by the SB account in question by alleging that his late father bequeathed the same in his favour by executing a registered Will deed dated 27.02.2006.  Ex. B1 is a copy of said application. The chief manager of the opposite party bank has categorically noted all the facts about the interse civil disputes between the parties, in her evidence affidavit. As per her version when the complainant’s son K. Rajeshwar Goud approached the bank with Ex.B1, he was advised to seek appropriate redressal from civil court.

7.                It is significant to notice that the complainant’s son, K. Rajeshwar Goud submitted the application, Ex. B1, to the opposite party bank on 02.07.2012 where as the complainant has filed the present complaint on 07.12.2012 and that on the very same day the court granted Ad-interim injunction order vide Ex. B2. Therefore it can be presumed that she must be well aware about the rival claims of her children in respect of various family properties including the present SB account. Despite said fact she got issued the legal notice under Ex. A2 to the opposite party bank seeking its permission to operate the said SB account solely, which is certainly unfair on her part. Ex. A3 & A4 are postal receipt and postal acknowledgement respectively for the notice, Ex. A2.

8.              In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that it is purely a case of civil nature and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, more so during pendency of civil suit before a competent court of law. Therefore we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. In this view of the matter the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

9.                In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

                   Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 22^nd day of April, 2013.

       Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                   Sd/-

      MALE MEMBER     LADY MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1. Complainant
2. Opposite party
3. Spare copy.