KESARI DEVI NAURANG RAI LOHIA FOUNDATION vs UTI BANK LTD.

IN both these complaints parties are the same and facts somewhat similar. Prayer in the O.P. No. 393/2002 is as under : "The petitioner claims the following reliefs from this Hon''ble Commission : (a) return of the Foreign Currency Non-Resident Deposit Receipts of the aggregate value of US $ 24,14,182.15 by the respondent No. 1; (b) to direct respondent No. 1 to treat the aforesaid deposits as yearly renewals from time to time and on that basis deliver the balance amounts found due upon maturity, upon the final decision of this Hon''ble Commission. (c) to award an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs towards loss and damages suffered by the petitioner by taking into consideration the mental agony suffered by Late Sh. Naurang Rai Lohia; (d) award sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards costs of the proceedings; (e) pass such other and further orders as this Hon''ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

IN O.P. No. 394/2002 the prayer is as under : "The petitioner claims the following reliefs from this Hon''ble Commission : (a) return of the Foreign Currency Non-Resident Deposit Receipt of the aggregate value of US $ 13,31,038.44 by the respondent No. 1; (b) to direct the respondent No. 1 to treat the aforesaid deposits as yearly renewals from time to time and on that basis deliver the balance amounts found due upon maturity, upon the final decision of this Hon''ble Commission; (c) to award an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs towards loss and damages suffered by the petitioner by taking into consideration the mental agony suffered by Late Sh. Navrang Rai Lohia; (d) award sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards costs of the proceedings; (e) pass such other and further orders as this Hon''ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

WE take up the O.P. No. 393/2002. Complainant is a Trust which was created by Navrang Rai Lohia, a Non-Resident Indian since deceased. Lohia was settled in Bangkok. Lohia executed a ''Will'' dated 11.1.2001 bequeathing proceeds of his FCNR(B) deposits aggregating to US $ 24,14,182.15. He died on 4.2.2001. Complaint is that opposite party No. 1-UTI Bank Ltd. refused to honour the FCNR(B) deposits. It is not that there is no basis for the UTI Bank Ltd. to deny the release of the proceedings of the FCNR(B). Complaint does not show if the ''Will'' has been probated or not. Various reasons have been given in the complaint itself for the Bank to deny the amounts in question. However, it is stated that Lohia himself in his life-time filed Civil Suit No. 398/2000 in the High Court of Calcutta which is still pending. However, statement is made that that case is taking its own time. Reasons for knocking the door of this Commission are that meanwhile activity of the Charitable Trust of the complainant has come to grinding halt because the sources have tied up and the refusal of UTI Bank had created piquant situation raising consumer dispute. The complaint and the documents filed therewith raise complicated questions of facts and law. It is not possible to decide this matter in our summary jurisdiction. Moreover Civil Suit filed by the deceased on the same issues pending in the Calcutta High Court would itself show that Bank had reason to deny the proceedings of the FCNR(B) to be given to the complainant. Synopsis to the complaint would itself show that the amount in question had been bequeathed to the complainant Trust by Lohia during his life-time. When we express our opinion that we do not deal with this matter, Mr. Dhir, learned Counsel for the complainant says that he has instructions to withdraw the suit from the Calcutta High Court. That in our view that this still make it worse for the complainant. That suit was filed by the testator himself and this petition is sought to be filed by the Trust. We, therefore, dismiss this complaint. Original Petition No. 394/2002 For the same reasons as recorded in Original Petition No. 393/2002, this complaint is dismissed. Complaints dismissed.