This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that the complainant has a Joint Account with her son (proforma opposite party) in the Punjab National Bank Bhastara Branch vide account no. 1167000100090517 and due to suffering from Neurological Disorder, Hypertension etc for long period the complainant is unable to put her signature and as such the complainant has put L.T.I. in the certificate of Dr. K.C. Dey in presence of the said Doctor and the said L.T.I. of the complainant has been attested by the above named Doctor and the complainant also put her L.T.I. over the letter addressed to the opposite party no. 1 and the said letter has also been attested by the said Doctor on 26.11.2013 and wherein the complainant has stated that due to illness she is unable to move elsewhere and also could not put her signature and over any paper and for that reason the complainant has deputed her grandson namely Badsha Khan to look after her bank account lying with the opposite party no. 1 and the complainant has informed the matter to the opposite party bank but this opposite party did not permit the said grandson of the complainant to withdraw money from the joint bank account of the complainant and to get better treatment of the complainant the money is very urgently required and for the said reason finding no other alternative the complainant went to opposite party no. 1 by Ambulance to withdraw the money from her joint account and the opposite party no. 1 has taken the L.T.I. of the complainant forcibly over an application on 3.12.2013 without intimating the complainant about the contents of the said application and after collecting the statement of accounts from the opposite party no. 1 it has been detected by the complainant that without intimating the complainant the proforma opposite party no. 2 has deducted an amount of Rs. 3,05,684/- only from the joint account of the complainant on 11.11.2013 and the complainant has raised her voice against such illegal acts and conducts of the opposite party no. 1 but the opposite party no. 1 has used defamatory and abusive language towards the complainant and the complainant has informed the matter in writing to the District Magistrate, Hooghly, Superintendent of Police, Hooghly, S.D.O. Sadar Hooghly and officer-in-charge Gurap Police Station but no result and the cause of action of this case has been arose on 26.11.2013 which has been aggravated on 3.12.2013 and it is still continuing.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite party to pass an order declaring that the deduction of money amounting to Rs.3,05,684/- only by the opposite party no. 1 from the joint account of the complainant and proforma opposite party no. 2 without any prior intimation in writing by opposite party no. 1 is improper, illegal, invalid and against the law of the land and to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for pecuniary losses and harassment and to pay the cost of the case and to give any other relief or reliefs as per law and equity.
The opposite party No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that the opposite party no. 1, bank received one letter from the office of the Tax Recovery Officer, Sales Tax Building, 3rd Floor, Serampore Court Compound under reference no. TRO/Sp/54/13-14 dt, 3.12.2013 wherein this opposite party bank has been directed that an amount of Rs. 3,05,684/- is to be recovered by the T.R.O. from the defaulter Alam Khan and accordingly the T.R.O. requested the opposite party no. 1 bank to remit the said money from any of the accounts of the defaulter and thereafter the opposite party no. 1 debited the said money from the A/c no. 1167000100090517 of Alam Khan as per order of the Joint Commissioner, T.R.O. Serampore, Hooghly which will be revealed from the letter dt. 11.11.2013 and the letter dt. 12.12.2013 reveals the acknowledgement of the amount sent by the opposite party no. 1 bank and the opposite party no. 1 is duty bound to carry out the attachment of the W.B.V.A.T. (certificate proceedings) Rules, 2009, notice of the attachment of the movable property in the custody of the Court or public and in that letter it was mentioned that this attachment applies to all accounts of the defaulter and in this case the account debited by the opposite party no. 1 is an account of either or survivor and the category of either or survivor account of the bank can be individually operated, no joint signature is necessary and after debiting the account the proforma opposite party no. 2 withdrew the rest of the total money from the said saving account and prior to withdrawal and remittance the balance of the account was Rs. 12,11,877.80/-, thereafter Rs. 3,05,684.00/- has been remitted by debiting the said account and the balance amount of the account has been withdrawn by the Alam Khan and the total episode of this case was prepared and manufactured by the Alam Khan and the epicenter of the outburst of the complainant is attaching the bank account of Alam Khan in order to remit the same to the Sales Tax Department and practically no damage was done to the complainant. Thus, the said complaint case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
The proforma opposite party No.2 also contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that after demise of the complainant one of her son namely Taleb Khan has filed a petition before the Forum with a prayer to record the names of the legal heirs of the complainant as proforma opposite parties and to record the name of Taleb Khan as petitioner of the present case and after hearing the Forum have been pleased to allow the said petition of Taleb Khan and at the time of institution of the present case the original petitioner had a joint account with her soon namely Alam Khan, the proforma opposite party no. 2 in the Punjab National Bank, Bhastara Branch vide Account no. 1167000100090517 and the original petitioner was unable to put signature due to her illness and as such she had put L.T.I. in the certificate of doctor and the opposite parties had/have the knowledge that the original petitioner had also put her L.T.I. over the letter as addressed to the opposite party no. 1 and the said letter was also attested by the said Doctor on 26.11.2013 and wherein the original petitioner had stated that due to her illness she was unable to move elsewhere and also could not put her signature over any paper and for which she had deputed her grandson namely Badsha Khan to look after the bank account lying with the opposite party no. 1 and the opposite party no. 1 had every knowledge regarding the poor physical condition of the original petitioner but the opposite party no. 1 did not permit the said grandson of the original petitioner to withdraw money from the joint account of the original petitioner and by this way the opposite party no. 1 had harassed the original petitioner and for better treatment of the original petitioner the money was very much required urgently and for which finding no other alternative the original petitioner had went to the opposite party no. 1 by Ambulance to withdraw the money from her joint account and at that time the opposite party no. 1 had taken the L.T.I. of the original petitioner forcibly over an application dt. 3.12.2013 without intimating the original petitioner about the contents of the said application.
The proforma opposite party No.2 further stated that after collecting the statement of accounts from the opposite party no. 1 the original petitioner had came to learn that without intimating her as well as without intimating Alam Khan in writing the opposite party no. 1 had deducted an amount of Rs. 3,05,684/- only from the joint account of the original petitioner and Alam Khan on 11.11.2013 and the abovementioned acts and conducts of the opposite party no. 1 is a clear of breach of trust on the part of the opposite party no. 1 and for which the original petitioner had raised her voice against such illegal acts and conducts of the opposite party no. 1 but the opposite party no. 1 had used defamatory and abusive languages towards the original petitioner and Alam Khan and the original petitioner had informed the matter to the District Magistrate, Hooghly, Superintendant of Police Hooghly, S.D.O. Sadar Hooghly and officer-in-charge, Gurap Police Station in writing and without any prior intimation to the original petitioner and/or Alam Khan and without complying the Banking Rules and Regulations towards the customers the opposite party no. 1 had deducted a sum of Rs. 3,05,684/- only from the joint account of the original petitioner and Alam Khan.
During the course of proceeding the complainant namely Halima Khatun died and her name has been substituted by her legal heirs vide order no.5 dated 4.2.2015. The legal heirs of the deceased complainant are contesting the case by filing evidence on affidavit, interrogatories and written notes of argument.
The complainant and the answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of complaint petition and written versions of the opposite parties so it is needless to discuss.
The complainant and the answering opposite parties also filed interrogatories followed by replies.
Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
1. Whether the Complainants Taleb Khan & 6 others ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the opposite parties carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
1).Whether the Complainants Taleb Khan & 6 others are ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainants being the legal heirs of deceased Halima Khatun who was the customer of opposite party bank are Consumer as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. So the complainants are entitled to get service from the service provider i.e. the opposite party No.1 & opposite party No.2 is the proforma Opposite Party.
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainants and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainant prayed for a direction upon the opposite party to declare the deduction of Rs.3,05,684/- is illegal, improper, invalid and against the law and compensation of Rs.100,000/- for mental pain & agony and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for pecuniary losses and harassment, litigation cost and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainants?
Complainants in their written argument averred that the original petitioner namely, Halima Khatun @ Bibi wife of late Abdul Rahim had instituted the case against the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Vastara Branch and Alam Khan as pro forma opposite party no. 2 before this Forum. In the complaint petition the complainant stated that she had a joint account with pro forma opposite party no. 2 in the Punjab National Bank, Vastara Branch vide account no. 1167000100090517. The original petitioner was an aged person and suffering from different ailments and also under the treatment of Dr. K.C. Dey and she was unable to put her signature. So, she had to put her L.T.I. in the certificate of Dr. K.C. Dey, which had been duly attested by the above named doctor. The complainant addressed to opposite party no. 1, Bank by a letter dt.26.11.2013 stating that she was unable to put her signature over any paper for which she deputed her grandson namely, Badsha Khan to look after the bank account as lying with opposite party no.1, Bank but knowing everything regarding the health of the complainant opposite party no. 1 did not grant permission to the grandson of the original petitioner to withdraw money from the joint account of the original petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. As a result the complainant compelled to go to the concerned bank with the help of ambulance to withdraw money from her joint account at that time the opposite party no.1 forcibly taken the L.T.I. of petitioner over an application on 3.12.2013 without intimating the contents to this petitioner. Subsequently, the complainant came to know from the statement of account that the opposite party no. 1 deducted an amount of Rs. 3,05,684/- from the joint account of the complainant on 11.11.2013. So, the complainant raised her objection regarding the illegal acts and conducts of the opposite party no. 1, Bank but the Manager of the concerned branch used defamatory and abusive language towards the original petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. Complainant informed the matter in writing to the D.M. Hooghly, S.P. Hooghly and others but of no result. According to this complainant the opposite party no. 1 heckled the petitioner in presence of several customers of the said Bank. It is a case of deficiency of case on the part of the opposite party no. 1 for which the original petitioner suffered mental pain and agony and ultimately she died during the pendency of this case. Thereafter, she was substituted by her legal heirs vide order no. 8 dt. 4.2.2015. The complainant assailed that opposite party no. 1 before debiting the aforesaid amount from the account of the original petitioner and pro forma opposite party no. 2 failed to inform the account holder which amounts to illegal in the eye of law and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no. 1, Bank.
In the written argument the opposite party no. 1 averred that he received one notice of attachment of movable property in the custody of a court or a public officer from the tax recovery officer, sale tax building 3rd door Serampore court compound P.S. Serampore, Dist. Hooghly under reference no. TRO/SP/54/13-14, dt. 3.10.2013 wherein the bank has been directed to recover an amount of Rs. 3,05,684/- from the account of defaulter of Alam Khan. The letter dt. 11.11.2013 will speak for itself regarding the debiting of account of Alam Khan. That the letter dt. 12.12.2013 also reveals the acknowledgment of said amount by the tax recovery officer that the bank official is duty bound to carry out the order of Ld. Joint Commissioner, sale tax under the provision of West Bengal Value Added Tax Certificate Proceeding Rule, 2009. In his argument the opposite party no. 1 also averred that the bank account no. 1167000100090517 is an account of either or survivor of Alam Khan and Halima Khatun Bibi which includes anyone can operate the said account. Prior to withdrawal an remittance the balance of the account was 12,11,877.80/- thereafter Rs. 3,05,684/- has been remitted by debiting the said account and the balance amount of the account has been withdrawn by the Alam Khan. Then the opposite party no. 1, Bank sent a letter regarding the debiting in respect of remittance of due tax which was being tactfully refused by the Alam Khan, the pro forma opposite party. So, the opposite party bank has done his duty as a nationalized bank and this bank cannot flout the direction of the tax department. The opposite party no. 1 further assailed that the total episode of this case was prepared and manufactured by the Alam Khan and the epicenter of the outburst of the petitioner is attaching the bank account of Alam Khan in order to remit the same to the sale tax department.
The written argument of the opposite party no. 2 is the replica of written version of the opposite party no. 2.
After perusing the letter no. TRO/SP/54/13-14, dt. 3.10.2013 the WEST BENGAL VALUE ADDED TAX (CERTIFICATE PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 2009 FORM NO. V.A.T.C.P. 10, notice of attachment of movable property in the custody of a Court of public officer, the T.R.O. requested the branch Manager PNB Vastara Branch to remit an amount of Rs. 3,05,684/- from the account of Alam Khan proprietor of M/S Khan Brothers’ of village Vastara Hathtala, P.O.- Vastara, Dist. Hooghly. In the said letter the T.R.O. stated that Alam Khan proprietor of M/S Khan Brothers’ of village Vastara Hathtala, P.O.- Vastara, Dist.- Hooghly has not paid the arrear amounting to Rs.3,05,684/- in respect of certificate no. 47 (E) 13/14 dt. 5.9.2013 forwarded by the requiring officer to T.R.O./ Serampore Tax Recovery office and the interest payable under Section 55 (10) of the West Bengal value added tax Act 2003 for the period commencing immediately after the said date and the said tax recovery officer has sent to the undersigned a certified copy of the said certificate u/s 56 (2) of the West Bengal value added tax Act 2003 specifying that an amount of Rs. 3,05,684/- is to be recovered by the undersigned from the defaulter. And whereas the undersigned desires to attach sums of money or other property which is included in the defaulter’s property now in the custody of opposite party bank.
It is crystal clear from the documents that the Bank deducted a sum of Rs. 3,05,684 from the joint account of the complainant, Halima Khatun and opposite party no. 2, namely, Alam Khan. It appears from the impugned account details that opposite party no. 2 is the first holder and Halima Khatun is the second holder. The opposite party no. 1 bank vide it’s letter dt. 11.11.2013 informed the Joint Commissioner, sale tax building 3rd floor Serampore court compound, P.S.- Serampore, Dist.- Hooghly that a draft of Rs.3,05,684/- as per instruction given in the attachment order in respect of certificate no. 47 (E) 13-14 is enclosed. On the same date the opposite party no. 1 sent a letter to opposite party no. 2 in respect of such deduction as per order of Joint Commissioner, Tax Recovery Office, Serampore, Hooghly.
After receiving the same draft the T.R.O. vide its letter dt. 12.12.2013 ensured such receipt to the Bank. So, the Bank complied the attachment order of Joint Commissioner, Sale Tax in accordance with WEST BENGAL VALUE ADDED TAX (CERTIFICATE PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 2009 of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
From the above discussion it is crystal clear that the deceased complainant and the substituted complainants prayed before this Forum to declare that the deduction of sales tax from the joint account of Alam Khan & Halima Khatun is illegal in the eye of Law & deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 bank. After perusing the case record and documents it is transparent that the opposite party No.1 bank acted as per the order of the government. The bank remitted the amount from the account of the defaulter of tax i.e. the first account holder and send the same to the concerned department in accordance with the provisions of Law. There is no arbitrary decision on the part of opposite part No.1 bank. The proforma opposite party i.e. the opposite party No.2 is fully aware regarding such dues of taxes and tax department tried their best to collect the dues in accordance with WEST BENGAL VALUE ADDED TAX (CERTIFICATE PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 2009 of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. So there is no deficiency of service and illegal act on the part of opposite party No.1 bank.
Upon perusing the complainant petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, interrogatories followed by reply, written arguments of both sides and documents this Forum is in the opinion that the complainants failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing documents and evidence and the opposite party No.1 by discharging the sovereign duty compelled to contest the case for a prolonged period which is not desirable. The deceased complainant and her legal heirs i.e. the substituted complainants and the proforma opposite party no.2 not only harassed the opposite party No.1 but also misused the recourse of Consumer Forum by filing such frivolous or vexatious complaint in collusion with proforma opposite party. So from the above discussion we can safely conclude that the complainants failed to prove their case by adducing evidence. As such the complaint petition is bereft of merit & to leg to stand. So the complaint petition is deserved to be dismissed with cost.
4). Whether the complainants proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainants failed to prove their case and the Opposite Party no.1 is not liable to pay any cost & compensation as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no.41 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party. No.1.
The complainants and opposite party No.2 are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- jointly and /or severally to the opposite party No.1 for filing frivolous or vexatious complaint in accordance with the provisions, u/s - 26 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 within 45 days from the date of order. In default the opposite party No.1 is at liberty to file execution case for compliance of this order.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
