Punjab

Sangrur

CC/492/2017

Bachan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Goyal

23 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  492

                                                Instituted on:    22.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       23.01.2018

 

1. Bachan Singh son of Gobind Singh 2. Gurjeet Singh S/O Bachan Singh, both residents of Village Safipur, Tehsil Sunam, Distt Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     Union of India through Superintendent Post Offices, Division Sangrur, 1^st Floor, Head Post Office, Sangrur.

2.     Post Master, Sub Post Office, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri S.S.Randhawa, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Jasvir Kaur and Gurjeet Singh, complainants (referred to as complainants in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Smt. Jasvir Kaur in her life time opened a TD account number 1011490 by depositing an amount of Rs.1,07,000/- with the OP number 2 on 2.12.2015 for a period of one year and that at the time of maturity the Ops were to pay the amount of Rs.1,07,000/- along with interest as payable on TD account. It is further averred that Smt. Jasvir Kaur  appointed the complainants as nominee under the account.  It is further averred that Smt. Jasvir Kaur died on 1.2.2017 and after her death the complainants found the passbook of the TD account and as such, they approached the OP number 2 for getting the payment being the nominees, but the OP number 2 refused to pay the amount to the complainants as the account holder did not got any witness on the nomination form while opening the TD account.  The complainants have further averred that despite visiting the Ops so many times, the payment was not made to the complainants. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainants have prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainants the amount of Rs.1,07,000/- along with interest as payable on TD accounts for the period from 2.12.2015 to 2.12.2016 and further interest @ saving account interest on the maturity amount from 2.12.2016 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainants have filed the complaint prematurely as the complainants have not completed the legal formalities and that the complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the deceased Jasvir Kaur had opened the TD account by depositing the amount of Rs.1,07,000/- on 2.12.2015 and she appointed Shri Bachan Singh (Husband) and Shri Gurjit Singh (son) as nominees, but she did not produce the witness of nomination at the time of opening the account, which is mandatory, as such the amount was not released. However, it has been admitted that the complainants approached the OP number 2 time and again for release of the payment, but the amount could not be released due to the reason as mentioned above. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainants has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 copy of account opening form and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that Smt. Jasvir Kaur had opened a TD account  number 1011490 with the OP number 2 on 2.12.2015 for the period of one year by depositing an amount of Rs.1,07,000/- and it is further admitted fact between the parties that Smt. Jasvir Kaur died on 1.2.2017, as is evident from the copy of death certificate on record Ex.C-3.  It is further not in dispute that Smt. Jasvir Kaur appointed the complainants as nominees under the TD account, but the grievance of the complainants is that the OPs refused to make the payment to the complainants (Nominees) on the ground that the account holder did not get any witness on the nomination form.  We have very carefully perused the account opening form Ex.OP-2, which clearly reveals that  Smt. Jasvir Kaur deceased in her life time appointed Shri Bachan Singh and Shri Gurjit Singh complainants being the nominees under the TD account, but it is true that there is no witness.  But, the Ops have not produced any document on record to show that the witness is mandatory one, when the name of the nominees is clearly mentioned therein, the question of withholding the amount does not arise at all. If that was so, then it was the duty of the officials of the OPs to ask the account holder to bring the witness at that time, but there is nothing on record to show that the officials of the Ops ever asked the account holder Jasvir Kaur to bring the witness.  Mere giving a note on the account opening form later on i.e. 4.12.2015 that the witness to nomination not taken, so the nomination can’t be registered is not sufficient to deny the claim of the complainants being the nominees, more so when they are husband and son of the account holder. There is nothing on record to show that the account holder was ever intimated that the nomination made by her has been rejected.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are deficient by withholding the amount of the complainants for such a long time.

 

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainants/nominees an amount of Rs.1,07,000/- along with interest as payable on TD accounts for the period from 2.12.2015 to 2.12.2016 and pay further interest as payable on saving account interest on the maturity amount from 2.12.2016 till realisation.   We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

7.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        January 23, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member