This appeal challenges the order dated 31/3/2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur disposing off the consumer complaint bearing No.422/11and granting liberty to the complainant/appellant herein to move the Civil Court or any other competent court to resolve the dispute in respect of the deposit made with the Opposite Party/Bank Respondent herein.
The Appellant to be referred as “complainant” and Respondents as “Ops” for the sake of brevity.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are complainant Smt.Nirmala Wasudeo Kale has a joint Saving Bank account with her brother Madhukar Sudarshan Shrifale (Trifale) bearing No.68662537516 in the Warud Branch of Bank of Maharashtra. The said account was opened jointly for the purpose of receiving the compensation granted by the Government towards land acquisition. It was opened on 11/11/2010 with operating instructions as “either or survivor”. The amount of compensation of Rs.5,64,445/- was credited on 15/11/2010 in the said joint account. The joint holder of the Saving Account Shri. Madhukar Sudarshan Shrifale (Trifale) died on 19/12/2010. The complainant thereafter requested the OP No.5 Branch Manager, Warud Branch, Bank of Maharashtra to transfer the amount deposited in the joint S/B account at Warud Branch to the S/B account No. 60066315768 at Shankar Nagar Branch of Bank of Maharashtra at Nagpur. However, it is alleged by the complainant that the Branch Manager of the Warud Branch of Bank of Maharashtra, with some ulterior motive, did not permit the said transfer of the deposit to the branch at Nagpur. On the other hand, she received a letter from the office of Banking Ombudsman (Maharashtra & Goa) C/o Reserve Bank of India informing her that they have put the operations on hold since there is a dispute involved in respect of the legitimate claimant to receive the balance in the account and that the complainant is free to approach any other Forum if she is dissatisfied by the decision of Banking Ombudsman. Therefore, the complainant filed the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking
a) transfer of the amount of Rs.5,64,835/- deposited in the Warud Branch of Bank of Maharashtra into saving account of the complainant at Shankar Nagar Branch of Nagpur.
b) Interest at the rate of Rs.10.25% to be given on the above mentioned amount
c) Compensation of Rs.2 lac for physical and mental harassment incurred by the complainant due to irresponsible behavior adopted by the Opponents by infringing the banking regulations.
d) Further compensation of Rs.1 lac to be imposed jointly on Opponent No.5 Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Warud Branch and Opponent No.6, Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Laxminagar Branch.
e) Rs.50000/- be paid towards cost of proceedings.
The Opponents No.1 to 6 on receipt of the notice issued by the Forum, resisted the complaint by filing their joint written version and admitted that although the complainant can legally operate the S/B account and she would be allowed to operate the same as soon as she furnishes the KYC details with the Bank as per the Reserve Bank Regulations. The Opponents have further submitted that since there is a family dispute between the complainant and Smt.Meera Triphale, the widow of the joint account holder, it had referred the matter to their Regional Office. Therefore, they had not rendered any deficiency in service and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
The Forum disposed of the complaint observing therein that admittedly the joint account was opened in the Opponent Bank for receiving the compensation granted by the Government towards the acquisition of land. This is further supported by the admitted fact that the said account was opened on 11/11/2010 and the amount of compensation was credited on 15/11/2010 and the joint account holder Shri. Madhukar Sudarshan Shrifale (Trifale) died on 19/12/2010. Therefore, it is obvious that after the death of Shri.Madhukar, his legal heirs are entitled to the compensation, and under such circumstance, the complainant was not allowed to receive the full amount of compensation. So, prima facie, it cannot be said that the Opponent Bank has rendered any deficient service. The Forum has further held that in the circumstance, the legal heirs of the deceased joint account holder could have been a necessary party to the complaint. The complainant has failed to implead them. Had the complainant impleaded the legal heirs, the Forum could have heard them by issuing notice to them. In the circumstance, without giving any findings on the merits of the case, the Forum disposed of the complaint, with directions as aforesaid.
Feeling aggrieved by the said disposal of the complaint, the Original Complainant has filed this appeal.
We heard the authorized representative/counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Opponents and perused the copy of the complaint, written version and the documents filed on record by both the parties.
On perusal of the fax letter dated 2/1/2011 sent by the complainant informing the Opponent to stop payment of the cheque dated 3/1/2011 of Rs.564,000/- issued by her in the name of Smt.Meera Triphale till further notice, and the letters issued by the Opponents dated 18/3/2011, 5/4/2011, 15/4/2011 it is obvious that there is a dispute in respect of the operation of the joint S/B account bearing No.68002537516 as the complainant Smt.Nirmala Kale and Smt.Meera Trifale, widow of the joint account holder Madhukar both have issued instructions to the Opponent Bank to stop operations. We also perused the letter dated 15/6/2011 issued by the office of the Banking Ombudsman (Maharashtra & Goa) C/o Reserve Bank of India addressed to the complainant informing her that in view of the request submitted by Mrs.Meera Madhukar Triphale alongwith other legal heirs, bank put on hold operations in the account till further instructions. The said letter also makes reference of the reply letter dated 29.4.2011 sent by the Opponents in response to the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opponent before the Banking Ombudsman. We also perused the said letter dated 29/4/2011 in reference to the complaint of Smt.Nirmala Kale where it is categorically stated while admitting that the S/B account No.68002537516 was opened on 11/11/2010 jointly by one Shri.Madhukar Sudarshan Trifale & 2) Smt.Nirmala Wasudeo Kale with operation “either/ survivor”. On 3/1/2011, they received a fax message from Mrs.Nirmala Kale instructing the Opponent Bank to stop payment of cheque amount Rs.5,64,000/- issued by her in the name of Meera Trifale till further notice. On 4/1/2011 the Opponent Bank received another fax followed by letter from Smt.Meera Madhukar Trifale stating that Shri.Madhukar Trifale expired on 19/12/2010 and that amount deposited in the saving account pertains to compensation received for agricultural land acquired by Government and to stop operations in the said account till further instructions as they are the legal heirs of the deceased joint account holder. Therefore, the Bank put on hold all types of transactions on the account. The reply further mentions that since the matter was under dispute, it was referred to the Regional Office, Amravati for Legal opinion and accordingly complainant was informed by letter dated 15/4/2011 and the Regional Office by letter dated 28/3/2011 had informed the opponent Bank to continue hold on the banking operations of the account. Therefore, the Opponent Bank had informed the Complainant and the Widow of the Joint Account Holder by letter dated 5/4/2011 accordingly.
The contents of this letter clearly indicate that the Opponents have put on hold the operations of the account since undisputedly, there is a family dispute involved. However, since the Forum has no jurisdiction to resolve a family dispute and also the complainant has failed to bring on record evidence in respect of any deficiency in service rendered by the Opponent Bank or any type of Unfair Trade Practice adopted by the Opponent Bank. On the other hand, we are of the reasoned opinion that the Bank has adopted a very cautious, logical and considerate approach in rendering service to the consumer/account holder.
For the forgoing reasons we find no glaring infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Forum. The complainant is at liberty to get the family dispute resolved from competent court/authority which in our opinion would be in best of interest of justice.
In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
