DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

                                                            SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

                                      AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

                                  C.C. CASE NO. 139 OF 2016

                            DATE OF FILING: 06/12/2016  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 07/06/2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :   Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                            

COMPLAINANT      : Paresh Chandra Sasmal, S/o- Late Achintya Sasmal, Vill + P.O- Chemagari. P.S- Gangasagar Coastal, Dist- South 24 Parganas, Pin- 743373

• VERSUS    -

O.P/O.Ps                    : 1) Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Chemagari Branch, P.S- Gangasagar Coastal, Dist- South 24 PGS, Pin-743373

                                    2) Regional Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Garia, Balia, Kolkata-700084

                                    3) Chairman, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, B.M.C House, Chuapur, P.O- Chaltiya, Baharampur, Murshidabad, Pin- 742101

__________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that the complainant in a marginal farmer. He used to take loan from the O.Ps bank since 1982 and has also paid those loans taken from the bank. There is a good relation maintained so far between him and the O.P Bank. In the year 2000, he applied to O.P Bank for a cash credit loan facility for poultry (broiler) cultivation. Loan was sanctioned on 20.07.2000 with maximum drawal limit of Rs. 20,000/-. The said loan was to by repaid be on 20.07.03 with interest @ 12.5% p.a. Loan of Rs. 20,000/- was taken by the complainant accordingly on fulfillment of formalities of bank in relation to hypothecation and security. On 20.02.15 he liquidated the entire dues of bank with last payment of Rs. 2,100/-. Still, on 20.08.15, when he went to the bank for a further loan, the manager of the bank told him that no loan would be granted to him unless another loan of Rs. 20,000/- taken by him is liquidated. The complainant told the manager that he did not accept the said loan. He also requested the said manager to show the withdrawal slip for encashment of loan amount by him; but, the manager could not show it. Since then, the complainant has approached the O.Ps bank several times, seeking a solution of his problem and he has also lodged grievance before the O.Ps. But, none of the O.Ps has paid any heed to his grievance. Instead, he has received a short shrift as reward from the manager of the O.P Bank. Frustrated, he has filed an instant case praying for exemption from payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the bank, return of security deeds, compensation etc. Hence, this case.

The O.Ps have filed a written version of their statement wherein it is contended inter alia that an unintentional manual error took place on 20.08.15 during the re-conciliation of various account. The entire principal amount of Rs. 20,000/- with interest has been refunded to the complainant on the basis of Higher Authorities letter no. BGVB/RO(S)/ACCT/1823/2016 dated 19.09.16. Thereafter, the complainant applied for closer of loan, vide his letter dated 03.10.16 and accordingly the loan has been closed. It is regional manager who is empowered to order refund of the amount and the delay whatever is caused was procedural, not malafide. The complainant is false, baseless and vexatious and, therefore, it should be dismissed.

Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service for not dealing with the grievance of complainant with due promptitude.
2. Is the complainant entitled to relief/ reliefs as prayed for?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Both the parties have led evidence which are on record. Questionnaires, reply and BNAs filed by them are also kept in record for consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point nos. – 1 & 2

Already heard the submission of Ld Lawyers appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint, the written statement and also the evidence on record. Considered all these.

It has been submitted on behalf of the O.P bank that a mistake was committed in the office of the Bank and, therefore, a wrong entry of Rs. 20,000/- was made in the account of the complainant as if to show that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 20,000/-. But, the said wrong has been rectified by the bank and the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest has been credited to the complainant with the approval of their Higher Authority. It is further submitted on behalf of the O.P Bank that such a mistake took place owing to migration of manual system to computerized system which is now prevalent in their bank and such mistake being unintentional may be ignored.

It is admitted by the O.P Bank that a wrong entry was made in the account of the complainant to the effect that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 20,000/-. The said wrong has been rectified by the O.P Bank. To err is human and there is no man born, who has never committed any mistake. A person could not be blamed for committing any mistake; but, the blame is given to him only when the mistake is not rectified within a reasonable period so, that such a mistake does never become the source of any anguish and harassment of any person. In our view, why will an innocent person suffer for the mistake of another? With this view of ours, it is to be seen now whether the O.P Bank is guilty of deficiency in service in any manner.

The anomaly was brought to the notice of the O.P 1 by the complainant; vide the application dated 18.11.15 and this fact is not disputed by the O.Ps. The O.Ps have admitted in their written statement that such an application was received by O.P 1 from the complainant. The instant case is filed on 06.12.16 that is one year after the receipt of the said application dated 18.11.15 of the complainant. Wrong entry was made and wrong demand was raised by O.P 1 on 20.08.15. It is found that the O.Ps took almost a year to rectify their mistake. Can the O.Ps imagine for a moment as to how tormenting is the false claim against a customer? They should have taken prompt step to address the situation caused by their own mistake. They should have taken special initiative or drive to apply the balsam to the wound of complainant, created by them. But, no such special initiative was taken by them; they allowed the sore to fester in their proverbial lackadaisical manner. Want of due promptness to address the situation arising solely from their own mistake is certainly a deficiency in service which has been a constant source of harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The O.P Bank is liable to compensate the complainant. In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

The complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the O.Ps. The O.Ps are hereby directed not to recover Rs. 20,000/- as mistakenly shown against date “20.08.15” in complainant’s account no. - 5128250000251 and to return to the complainant all the security deeds they have taken from the complainant in connection with poultry loan sanctioned on 20.07.00 and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by them, within a month of this order failing which the compensation amount and the cost amount as referred the above will carry interest @ 10% p.a till full realization thereof.

Let a copy of the order be supplied or sent free of cost at once to the parties concerned.

I/ We agree                                                                              President

                   Member                                   Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                                                President