Order No.  8  dt.  23/02/2017

       The case of the complainants in brief is that one Ram Ratan Biyani, since deceased, was holding one MIS A/C bearing no.104378 and one Recurring Deposit A/C bearing no.RD 11753 respectively at Bagbazar Post Office, o.p. no.1 jointly with his nephew Sri Ajay Kumar Biyani, o.p. no.4. The MIS A/C  was for a period of 6 years and RD A/C was also for a period of 5 years. Late Ram Ratan Biyani made the operation of the account would be Joint B Type i.e. the said account would be operate by any of the account holders (either or survivor). But after sometime it was found that o.p. no.4 was adopting malpractice for which he coverted the account in Joint A Type. The said Ram Ratan Biyanai informed the said fact to o.p. no.1 asking them not to allow o.p. no.4 to operate the said accounts. In respect of the said dispute the complainant filed a title suit no.41/2011 and he said suit was dismissed for non prosecution. It was further stated that said Ram Ratan Biyani had no knowledge regarding such conversion of joint account into single account. The entire episode took place behind the back of Ram Ratan Biyani. After detection of the irregularities committed by o.p. lawyer’s letter was sent on 1.6.15 but no action was taken by o.p. no.1. Since o.p. no.1 failed to clarify as to why the said accounts were converted into single account thereby the complainants filed this case praying for refund the principal amount of Rs.4,62,000/- invested by Ram Ratan Biyanai and also direction upon the o.ps. to disclose the principal matured amount of the RD A/C maintained with office of o.p. no.1 and also prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/vs and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v of o.p. no.1 to 3 stated that o.p. no.4 Ajay Kumar Biyani being the 1^st account holder of those two accounts had already received the matured amount and no amount was left to the complainant, therefore any claim with regard to those two accounts should not tenable in the eye of law. The complainants failed to intimate the o.p. no.1 with an order from the court regarding stop payment from the said accounts but no such order was provided by the complainant. It was further stated by o.ps. that one MIS A/C no.104378 for Rs.4,62,000/- was opened at Bagbazar Post Office on 20.7.09 in the name of o.p. no.4 and Ram Ratan Biyani opting that the operation of the account can be done either or survivor basis and RD A/C was opened with severally operation mode i.e. anyone can operate the account. On 11.8.10 Ram Ratan Biyani one of the co-depositor of the MIS A/C sent a letter to o.p. no.1 with a direction that henceforth the account shall be operated jointly not individually and since no order from the court was provided, therefore intimation was given to Ram Ratan Biyani to that effect. Subsequently Ram Ratan Biyani filed a title suit in City Civil Court and the said case was dismissed. Thereafter no step was taken by plaintiff for restoration of the said suit, subsequently after the lapse of several years this case was filed. The o.ps. also denied the material allegations of the complainant that the accounts were originally opened in Sikar Post Office but it was actually opened in Bagbazar Post Office. Since no irregularity was committed by o.p. nos.1 to 3, therefore o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            In their w/v o.p. no.4 stated that this case is not maintainable since the suit filed by Ram Ratan Biyani in the year 2011 and Ld. 10^th Bench City Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the suit and said Ram Ratan Biyani did not take any step further till his death on 30.12.15. The o.p. no.4 also challenged the relationship of the complainants with the said deceased Ram Ratan Biyani and this case has been filed after the lapse of 3 years and the case was not filed within the period of limitation of 2 years, therefore the case is not maintainable. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case o.p. no.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether Ram Ratan Biyani along with o.p. no.4 opened MIS A/C and RD A/C in Bagbazar Post Office.
2. Whether the matured sum given by the post office to o.p. no.4 was made in accordance with law.
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 to 3.
4. Whether the complainants will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that one Ram Ratan Biyani opened MIS A/C and RD A/C at Bagbazar Post Office. While the said Ram Ratan Biyani found that some malpractice had been adopted by o.p. no.4 in operation of those accounts he decided to convert the said account in Joint A Type instead of Joint B Type in order to siphoning of fund from the said joint account by o.p. no.4, to that effect Ram Ratan Biyani informed the post office but no action was taken. Subsequently Ram Ratan Biyani filed a suit before the Ld. 10^th Bench City Civil Court and said suit was dismissed. After coming to know of the said fact a lawyer’s letter was sent to o.p. no.1, but no action was taken. Being aggrieved by the action of o.p. no.1 the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon o.p. nos.1 to 3 to disburse the fund in favour of the complainants as well as for other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 to 3 argued that since o.p. no.4 was the 1^st account holder of those two accounts and after the maturity of those accounts the amount had already been disbursed in favour of  o.p. no.4 and no further payment was left or due to the complainants, therefore any claim with regard to those accounts the complainants could have filed a civil suite praying for the relief. Since the predecessor in interest of the complainants had earlier filed as suit before the Ld. City Civil Court and the said suit was dismissed and the said Ram Ratan Biyani was repeatedly requested to bring an effective order from a competent court of law before the disbursement of the account in favour of o.p. no.4, said Ram Ratan Biyani failed to provide any order the competent court of law, as such as per the rule the 1^st account holder of those two accounts had already received the matured amount. There was no illegality committed by o.p. nos.1 to 3, therefore the case is to be dismissed.

            Ld. lawyer for o.p. no.4 argued that the complainants’ predecessors interest Ram Ratan Biyani filed a title suit before the City Civil Court and the case was dismissed on 7.5.13 and Ram Ratan Biyani did not take any action in respect of dismissal of the said suit till his death on 13.12.15. After his demise by making false allegation against o.p. no.4 the complaiannt filed this case, therefore o.p. no.4 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that two accounts were maintained at office of o.p. no.1, one was MIS A/C and another was RD A/C. Both accounts were made jointly in the name of Ram Ratan Biyani and o.p. no.4. From the materials on record it appears that o.p. no.1 disclosed that o.p. no.4 being the 1^st account holder of those two accounts and after the maturity period of those two accounts the amount had already been received by o.p. no.4 and no further payment is due from o.p. no.1. It is also found from the materials on record that o.p. no.1 repeatedly requested Ram Ratan Biyani to bring an effective order from the competent court of law but no order was provided to the post master. It is found from the materials on record that Ram Ratan Biyani earlier filed a suit in the City Civil Court being title suit no.41/2011 and the said suit was dismissed on 21.1.13 and it is also found from the materials on record that Ram Ratan Biyani died on 30.12.15 i.e. Ram Ratan Biyani was alive when both the accounts were closed and Ram Ratan Biyani endorsed his no objection with regard to disbursement of the fund in favour of o.p. no.4. In such background of the fact and since the complainants did not take any step after the lapse of several years since the date of disbursement of the fund and after more than 2 years from the releasing of the fund by post office the complainants came before this Forum praying for a direction upon o.p. nos.1 to 3 for not disbursing the fund in favour of the complainants and also for compensation based on falsity of facts and therefore we hold that the complainants will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.229/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.  

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.