15....03.01.2022...
Both parties are present. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant filed BNA on 09.02.2021. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. files BNA today.
Heard argument.
Final order will be delivered today at 2 PM.
Later,
Both parties are present. It is now 2 PM.
Final order containing 4 pages is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Commission.
It is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. without cost.
Let copies of final order be supplied/handed over to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. NO. 54 OF 2020
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
08.09.2020 28.09.2020 03.01.2022
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member : Jagadish Chandra Barman
Member : Sangital Paul
COMPLAINANT : Basanti Maity, W/O – Late Bablu Maity, Anandapally Champahati, P.S. - Baruipur, Dist. - South 24- Parganas, Pincode- 743330.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps :1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Champahati Branch, P.O. + P.S. - Baruipur, Dist. – South 24 Pgs, Kolkata – 743330.
Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Ajay Kumar Chakraborty
Advocate for the O.P. : Smt. Karabi Mukherjee
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
One Basanti Maity (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against The Manager, State Bank of India, Champahati Branch (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for allowing her to withdraw the amount in the S/B Account of her husband who died on 21.10.2015, compensation and litigation cost alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:
That after death of Bablu Maity, the husband of the complainant, the complainant went to the O.P. No. 1 with cremation certificate of her husband for withdrawal of the amount in the Savings bank account of Bablu Maity but the O.P. turned down the request of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had not produced the death certificate of her husband. Hence, the complainant has filed the case praying for relief.
The O.P. contested the case by filing W/V on 31.12.2020 contending that the case is not maintainable and the O.P. is not a necessary party. It is the case of the O.P. that death certificate is necessary for a claim. The O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :-
- Is the complainant a consumer under the provisions of C.P Act?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief against the O.Ps., as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1 :-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as she hired the services of the O.P. It is contended that the complainant is none but the wife of Bablu Maity and the O.P. has wrongly withheld the payment.
In reply, Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the complainant is not a consumer as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the O.P. It is urged that the complainant has filed photocopy of first page of pass book of United Bank of India in the name of the complainant but no account number of Bablu Maity has been mentioned in the W/C as well as in the evidence. She argues that it is the duty of the complainant to establish that she has privity of contract with the O.P. but in the present case the complainant has failed to even mention the account number of Bablu Maity in the S.B.I.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that he has filed all documents received from the complainant.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. It is true that the complainant has not even mentioned the account number of her husband namely Bablu Maity in the S.B.I. The complainant has filed photocopy of first page of United Bank of India in the name of the complainant but no document has been filed to establish that Bablu Maity had S/B account with the O.P. No. 1 at the time of his death.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the complainant has failed to establish that she is a consumer. Hence, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer.
Point Nos. 2 & 3 :-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the O.P. has refused to pay the balance amount in the savings account of Bablu Maity even after submission of cremation certificate on the plea that death certificate is necessary. He argues that cremation certificate cannot be issued without death certificate. He submits that the O.P. has deficiency in service for which the O.P. may be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the S/B account of Bablu Maityl, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the O.P. has no deficiency in service. It is urged that the complainant has not even stated the account number in the name of Bablu Maity. She submits that there is no communication between the complainant and the O.P. regarding alleged refusal to make payment. She contends that death certificate is a must for claiming any amount from the account of a dead person. She prays for dismissal of the complaint.
We have already hold that the complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, we find no justification to go into the merit of Point Nos. 2 and 3.
Both points are thus disposed of.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. without cost.
Let copies of final order be supplied/handed over to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Dictated and corrected by me
President
