CHIEF MANAGER Vs. MANIKA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 81/2018 dated 18.09.2018.

(2.) In the Complaint case, it was stated that the Respondent/Complainant was the widow of a defence personnel. Upon the death of her husband, she was receiving pension in her Savings Bank Account, jointly held with her son, Suman Kalyan Sarkar. Her son was an employee of the Petitioner Bank. The Bank Authority froze the Respondent's Account, since her son was charged with misappropriation of money. It was stated that due to the saidaction of the Petitioners, transactions in respect of the Pension Account became barred, subjecting the family pensioner to utter deprivation from enjoying her pension, which was her sole source of sustenance. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Respondent against the Petitioners alleging deficiency in service.

(3.) The Petitioners in the Written Statement contended that the injunction petition before the District Forum was not at all maintainable. The Respondent is not a Consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, she had no locus standi to file the injunction petition. The injunction petition is also barred by law of limitation and by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.The bank account in question was not a pension account. The said account was a joint account in the name of Suman Kalyan Sarker i.e. son of the Respondent. A criminal case was pending against the son of the Respondent, who was an employee of S.B.I. Karimpur Branch on charges of misappropriation of fund u/s 420/409 of I.P.C. The son of the Respondent filed a petition u/s 438 Cr.PC. before the Ld. Session Judge, Nadia and the Ld. Session Judge, Nadia rejected the prayer for interim bail. As per the request of the Respondent, her pension account was credited in her joint account. Hence, the Account in question is not a pension account, so no other transaction was allowed. Thus, the said Complaint was liable to be dismissed.