DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __136_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 05.12.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Pranab Kumar Kar, son of Sri Ashutosh Kar of Vill. & P.O Basanti, P.S Basanti, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743312.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Basanti Branch, Vill. & P.O Basanti, P.S Basanti, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743312
2. M/s Soumyadeep Bag, Prop. Of Soumyadeep Bag, son of late Dilip Kumar Bag, Baruipur, Madarat Road, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, the Branch Manager of United Bank of India, O.P-1, the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased a flat from the O.P-2 and ,therefore, he paid Rs.5 lac as part payment of consideration price to him i.e O.P-2 , having issued an account payee cheque no.993263 dated 19.3.2015. The cheque amount has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant ,maintained in the bank of O.P-1; but the said amount has not been credited to the account of O.P-2. Constant persuasion by the complainant has also failed to produce any dividend and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for refund of the said money i.e Rs.5 lac ,compensation etc. Hence, arises the instant case.
The O.P-1 has been contesting the case by filing written statement, wherein it is contended inter alia that complainant issued the aforesaid cheque bearing no.993263 ,amounting to Rs.5 lac in favour of Pranab Kumar Kar, not in favour of M/s Soumyadeep Bag i.e O.P-2. The said cheque has been debited against the account of the complainant and the cheque money has been deposited to the account of Pranab Kumar Bag, which is an invalid account. The said cheque amount has been debited from the account of the complainant on 24.3.2015 and the message of this was also given to the complainant at the relevant time. But ,since then, the complainant was silent; he did not inform anything to O.P-1 about the non-payment of the cheque amount to O.P-2. According to O.P-1, the complainant has suppressed the material facts and ,therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in the case and the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
O.P-2 has also filed the written statement ,wherein it is contended by him that he has not received Rs.5 lac i.e the cheque amount from the complainant as yet.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and also by the O.P-1 which are kept in the record .
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
O.P-1 has filed a photocopy of the cheque bearing no.993263 dated 19.3.2015 which was issued by the complainant. A perusal of this cheque reveals that the cheque was not issued by the complainant in favour of O.P-2. Rather, it was issued in favour of one Pranab Kumar Kar. We do not know whether this Pranab Kumar Kar , in whose favour the cheque was issued by the complainant, was the complainant himself or any one else. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the cheque was issued by the complainant in favour of a certain Pranab Kumar Kar. Pranab Kumar Kar deposited the cheque in his account which is maintained in Canara Bank, Baguihati Branch and it is so reflected from the photocopy of the cheque which is filed on behalf O.P-1. On the basis of this cheque, the O.P-1 has transferred the cheque amount i.e Rs.5 lac to the account of Pranab Kumar Kar, which is an invalid account.
That the amount has been transferred to that invalid account of Pranab Kumar Kar is also reflected in the entry of passbook of the present complainant. So, it is found that the O.P:-1 has properly discharged its duty in so far as the encashment of the cheque issued by the complainant is concerned. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1. It is the complainant who has made an attempt to mislead the Forum. He has not come before the Forum with clean hands. He does never say for a moment that he issued the cheque in favour of a certain Pranab Kumar Kar. He does not give any explanation as to who that Pranab Kumar Kar is. He does not give any explanation as to why the cheque was not issued in favour of O.P-2 ,to whom he i.e the complainant is liable . That apart, he has suppressed all these material facts under the carpet.
Regards being had to all these, we feel no difficulty whatsoever to say that the ghost of suppression has entered into the soul of the complainant and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
There is no order passed as to the costs of the proceedings ,considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
There is no order as to the costs of the proceedings ,considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Member President
