USHA RANI Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 28.1.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) It is not disputed that Usha Rani appellant-complainant's (hereinafter called the complainant) husband Sham Lal was dead and he was having two accounts with the respondent-opposite party-The Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter called the opposite party), one of which was savings bank account and the other was CC account. The complainant's grievance was that after the death of her husband the opposite party had failed to make the payment. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party was that the complainant had failed to comply with the directions of the opposite party to supply the necessary documents. According to the opposite party all the documents were not supplied and whatever documents were supplied there were defects in them. District Forum after hearing the parties held as under : "after going through the documents it was found that some of the documents are defective. In column No.11 of Annexure-A i. e. , C9 name of the claimant is mentioned while in column No.12 names of the heirs are mentioned. In the affidavits of the heirs have mentioned the deceased left no heirs excepting mentioned in Para No.11 while it should have been mentioned as in Para No.12. Similarly, there are some other defects in the documents. The opposite party supplied Annexures A, C, D and E the documents, which according to the opposite party are defective. The complainant undertook to supply the said documents and the opposite party agreed to release the amount after the receipt of the documents. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the complainant is directed to supply the duly completed documents Annexures A, C, D and E to opposite party and the opposite party is directed to release the amount standing in the disputed accounts in favour of the complainant within one month after the receipt of the duly executed documents from the complainant. Copy of the order be sent to the parties. "

(3.) The District Forum, has passed a very innocuous order. The complainant had undertaken before the District Forum to supply the correct documents and the opposite party had agreed to release the amount after the receipt of the documents. In those circumstances, the District Forum had directed the complainant to supply the duly completed documents Annexures A, C, D and E to the opposite party and the opposite party was directed to release the amount standing in the disputed accounts in favour of the complainant within one month after the receipt of the duly executed documents from the complainant. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. It may be noted here that if the direction given by the District Forum was not complied with by the opposite party even after the documents as mentioned in the order were supplied by the complainant then the complainant could knock at the door of the District Forum for execution of its order. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as meritless.