Haryana

StateCommission

A/293/2021

SHWETA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROMILA BANSAL - Opp.Party(s)

SUDESH KUMAR KATARIYA

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.293 of 2021

                                                Date of Institution:12.11.2021

Date of final hearing: 21.03.2023

         

Shweta Singh, Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, (amalgamated with Indian Bank) now known as Indian Bank, having Branch at Sector-09, Gurugram.

…..Appellant

Versus

Promila Bansal, Proprietor of Bansal Trading Company, having its Office at 90/23, Laxmi Garden, Gurugram

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Gaurav Jaglan proxy counsel for Mr. Sudesh Kumar Katariya, Advocate for theappellant.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal No.293 of 2021 has been filed against the order dated 12.04.2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.174 of 2019, which was allowed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant's husband Sh.Pawan Kumar Bansal was proprietor of Bansal Trading Company who expired in a roadside accident. This is how complainant became proprietor of M/s Bansal Trading Company after the death of her husband. Chartered Accountant of the said firm asked complainant for Account Statement of A/c No. 50160160809 (current account) with Allahabad Bank for the period of 2017-2018 for Tax Audit purpose. Thereforecomplainant visited the branch on 05.10.2018 and met opposite party (OP) No. 2 but later did not behave properly to  the complainant and had even used abusive language and also denied to receive acknowledge her application along with documents alleging those documents to be fake and bogus. On the following day i.e. 06.10.2018 complainant again visited the said branch alongwith some of her relative but the OP No. 2 again treated them with hostile attitude and used filthy language and refused to give A/C statement to the complainant. Then complainant shot off a complaint to Allahabad Bank Zonal Office, Delhi through email dated 05.10.2018 & 06.10.2018 were not responded by the Zonal office Delhi. Thereafter a legal notice dated 15.10.2018 & 12.11.2018 were also sent to OPs but the same could not bring the desired results. As a result complainant could not submit the tax audit report for the said period Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence the complaint.

3.      In its written version, OPs submitted that as per RBI guidelines Bank Statement of any account, which was already closed by the customer, who himself was duly authorized to operate the said account, but thereafter if he has passed away in that eventuality the account statement cannot be issued to a third party, who claimed herself as legal heir of deceased customer. Until  such applicant establishes legal proximity and valid reason for the same.Since complainant miserably failed to produce any bona-fide document of proof of hereselfbeing legal heir of deceased Pawan Kumar Bansal in her said application as well as the letter issued by the competent authority which demanded the accounts statement so it was rightly refused. Further it was also alleged that only the duly authorised representative after producing Certificate of Authorisation and Certificate of bona-fide requirement of the Account Statement issued from competent authority could be held entitled for account statement but the complainant had nothing to produce except Death Certificate of deceased Pawan Kumar Bansal, which did not fulfill the condition and could not entitled complainant to get the Bank Statement issued.Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPsand prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Gurgaon has allowed the complaint vide order dated 12.04.2021, which is as under:-

“After going through the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence placed on file, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and it 5 appears that it is the case of ego problem of the concerned Bank Manager. So, in the interest of justice, the OPs are directed to provide Statement of Account to the complainant as per rule within 15 days from today failing which the concerned Manager of the Allahabad bank shall be liable to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant, which is to be recovered from his personal pocket. With these observations, the complaint is hereby disposed of, accordingly.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Gaurav Jaglan proxy counsel for Mr. Sudesh Kumar Katariya, the learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire record of appealas well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in case of any account being already closed by the subscriber prior to his death then account statement  of such account  could not be disclosed to third person.  Complainant failed to produce any document as being legal heir of the deceased subscriber. So complainant was not entitled to get the account statement being third party. The complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

8.      It is admitted that husband of the complainant was holder of an account No. 50160160809 which was closed by him during his life itself. It is also admitted that the husband of the deceased expired and prior thereto he closed his bank account in his life time.As per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in case of any account closed by the subscriber prior to his death the account statement  could not be disclosed to third person, but, complainant being legal heir of deceased Pawan Kumar Bansal has every right to get account statement of the account. Even in such like eventuality where the account holder has already got his account closed and thereafter if he dies even then the embargo regarding issuance of account statement is meant for third persons but not for any legal heir left by said account holder.  Since an adequate procedure has already been put in place to address such like cases therefore the OP was required to be little more patient and more responsive instead of alleging the request and other connected documents to be ficticious as such. In fact OP could have handed this situation definitely in  much better way.  Learned District Commission rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 12.04.2021.  The appeal is being devoid of merits and stands dismissed in limini.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.1500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

10.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of order: 21stMarch, 2023

 

 

 

 

                        (Suresh ChanderKaushik)                       (S. P. Sood)                                                  Member                                                            Judicial Member                

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)