Haryana

Karnal

CC/509/2022

Smt. Surender Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Yadvinder Rana

13 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 509 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.31.08.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 13.12.2023

 

 

 

Smt. Surender Kaur wife of Shri Singh Ram, aged about 58 years, resident of village Sarwan Majra, P.O. Bhadson, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch village Bhadson Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

2.     The Chief Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, SCO no.58-59, 2^nd floor Bank Square, Sector-17B, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh……Member

  

 

 Argued by: Shri Yadvinder Rana, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite parties exparte.

 

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

       

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has filed an application under section 22-C of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 before Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Karnal, and the same has been dismissed/disposed off on 01.09.2021 by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services with the liberty to approach appropriate Forum of Law for obtaining the requisite relief in accordance with the Law. So, the complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             The brief facts of the case are that complainant deposited a cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the OP no.1 bank and OP no.1 issued a FDR (fix deposit receipt), vide account no.3224904749. The said FDR had matured on 20.06.2013.and after that it was extended. After the maturity period, the complainant visited the OP no.1 on 05.05.2014 and requested to pay the FDR amount but OP no.1 did not pay the said FDR amount and started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other by giving false assurance. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.07.2014 upon the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 21.10.2022 of the Commission.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, certified copy of award dated 01.09.2021 of PLA, Public Unity Service Karnal Ex.C2, copy of receipt of FDR dated 20.12.2012 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 05.07.2014 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 20.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             As per version of complainant, on 20.12.2012, complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the OP no.1 in the shape of FDR. The said FDR had matured on 20.06.2013 and after that it was extended. After the maturity period, the complainant visited the OP no.1 on 05.05.2014 and requested to pay the FDR amount but OP no.1 did not pay the said FDR.

7.             To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, certified copy of award dated 01.09.2021 of PLA, Public Unity Service Karnal Ex.C2, copy of receipt of FDR dated 20.12.2012 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 05.07.2014 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 20.01.2023.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant deposited a cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the OP No.1 and OP No.1 issued a FDR. After maturity, when the complainant visited the OP No.1 bank on 05.05.2014 and requested to encash the FDR but they refused to encash the same without any reasonable ground. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant had filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Service, Karnal, on 11.09.2014 and same has been dismissed vide order Ex.C2 dated 01.09.2021. The said petition has been decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Service, Karnal, after hearing both the parties and the learned PLA came to the conclusion that the petition involves highly disputed question of facts and law. Voluminous oral and documentary evidence is required to be recorded for the purpose of effectively deciding the highly disputed questions of facts and law involved in that case. Learned PLA has also given liberty to the petitioner/now complainant to approach the appropriate Forum of Law for obtaining the requisite relief in accordance with law.

11.           After that the complainant has filed the present complaint on 31.08.2022 before this Commission on the same cause of action. As observed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Karnal, that voluminous oral and documentary evidence is required to be recorded for the purpose of effectively deciding the highly disputed questions of facts and law involved in the case, the same position is before this Commission. The facts which the complainant wants to prove, cannot be adjudicated in a summary process and without leading detailed examination/ cross examination of the witnesses. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties and in order to prove the issue involved in the present complaint, Court can cross examined the same. In this regard, we are placed reliance upon cases titled as Synco Industries Versus State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others I (2002) CPJ 16 SC, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “that where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of acts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum”, Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

12.           Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the above said judgments and in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without going into the merits of the complaint. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. The limitation would not be a rider in filing a fresh case before the Civil Court. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 13.12.2023

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

      

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                         Member