Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order No. 3 dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit—I (North) in Complaint Case No.CC/493/2016 dismissing the complaint in limine.

The facts, in brief, having relevance for disposal of the instant complaint, were that the Appellant/Complainant maintained two Savings Bank Accounts in Respondent/OP Nos. 2 and 3 branches of Respondent/OP No. 1 Bank. The Appellant/Complainant had issued formal instructions to the Respondent/OP No. 2 branch to transfer an amount leaving a minimum balance of Rs. 5/- only in his S.B Account No. S/162 being maintained with the Respondent/OP No. 2 branch to his another Savings Bank Account bearing No. S/7117 being maintained with the Respondent/OP No. 3 branch.

As alleged, the Respondent/OP No. 2 did not comply with his instruction although he gave an intimation to the Appellant/Complainant towards compliance of his above instructions. The interest of the Appellant/Complainant, as alleged, was seriously prejudiced due to above deficiency in rendering services on the part of the Respondent/OP No. 2. The aggrieved Appellant/Complainant then filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum. Impugned judgment and order originated from the said Complaint Case.

The Appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondents/OPs as they remained absent in spite of notices of hearing being duly served upon them. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant did not make verbal submission. It only filed BNA for consideration of this Bench.

Perused the papers on record. Perused the BNA filed by the Appellant/Complainant. As appeared from the impugned judgment and order, the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant claimed first that the Appellant/Complainant was a retired employee of the Respondent/OP No. 1 and subsequently, on further interrogation, as mentioned in the order, the Ld. Advocate informed the Bench that the Appellant/Complainant was a dismissed employee of the Respondent/OP No. 1 Bank.

The order did not put forward any justification about the Forum’s observation that the allegations against the Respondents/OPs were not “believable”. The dismissal of an employee from service, being an altogether separate issue and to be dealt with separately by a competent Forum, the same should not have been allowed in any way to affect the merit of the instant proceedings.

So, by being a non-believer of allegations in the complaint without adjudging the merit of the same, the Ld. District Forum appears to have been indulgent to a preconceived idea which actually led it to pass the impugned order affected with material irregularity.

Such being our observation, we are of the considered view that the case needs to be remanded to the Ld. District Forum.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part. The case be remanded with the direction upon the Ld. District Forum to re-hear the case on merit and dispose of it passing a reasoned order.

Both parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 18.06.2019.