BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : : TINSUKIA : : ASSAM
District: Tinsukia
Present: Smti M. Nandi,
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Tinsukia
Smti J. Gogoi,
Member,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Tinsukia
Sri K.K. Das,
Member,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Tinsukia
Consumer Case No. 7 of 2012
Sri Deepak Ranjan Dey,
S/o Late Bhola Nath Dey,
R/o Congress Colony, P.O. Sripuria,
P.S. & Dist: Tinsukia (Assam)…………..……...…..….…………...Complainant
1. Allahabad Bank,
Tinsukia Branch,
Rangagora Road, Tinsukia
P.S. & Dist: Tinsukia (Assam)
2. Allahabad Bank,
Head Office: 2, N.S. Road,
Kolkata – 700 001………………………….……….…………Opposite Parties
Appearance:
Sri B. Mishra,
Advocate……………………………….For the Complainant
Sri P. Deb,
Advocate……………………………….For the O.Ps.
Date of Argument : 16.03.2017
Date of Judgment : 21.03.2017
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a case u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant Deepak Ranjan Dey.
2. It is stated in the petition that on 25.7.09 and 27.7.09, the complainant opened two numbers of Term Deposit Account with Allahabad Bank, Tinsukia Branch i.e. O.P. No.1 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- each being Account No.50016919560 and 50016972499 respectively in his name being the maturity value for both the accounts was Rs.17,318/- respectively and date of maturity was 25.7.11 for the Account No.50016919560 and 27.7.11 for the Account No. 50016972499. The period of term deposit was two years with interest @ 7.25% upon maturity. On 31.7.11, after completion of maturity of both the term deposit accounts, the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 for renewing the said accounts for a further period of two years. The O.P. No.1 immediately made provisions for the reinvestment of the amount matured in Account No.50016972499, which was matured on 27.7.11, but the O.P. No.1 after taking the original receipt issued against the Account No.50016919560 dated 25.7.09 informed the complainant that he did not hold any term deposit amounting to the principal amount of Rs.15,000/- against the said account number and the original receipt was also not returned to the complainant even after his repeated requests. Thereafter, the complainant met with the Branch Manager of O.P. No.1 and put his complaint orally before him and upon hearing the complainant, the Branch Manager assured him to make an enquiry into the matter and requested him to visit the bank after three days. The complainant after three days i.e. on 3.8.11 again went to the O.P. No.1, but the bank official replied that they have not been able to trace out the Term Deposit Account No.50016919560 which was deposited vide receipt No.062470 dated 25.7.11. The complainant thereafter lodged many verbal complaints to the O.P. No.1, but with of no effect. Thereafter the complainant requested the O.P. No.1 to hand over the original receipt of the Term Deposit Account No.50016919560, but the bank officials refused to return the same and misbehaved with him. As such, the O.Ps have committed serious deficiency in service being the complainant a consumer by not making the payment of the maturity amount of the Term Deposit Account and compensating the damages to the complainant. The O.Ps have failed to provide proper service and as such, liable for deficiency in service. Through this petition, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.17,318/- being the maturity amount payable on 25.7.11 along with interest @ 12% per annum, an amount of Rs.1,000/- on account of travelling expenses and an amount of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
3. On receipt of the notice, O.P. No.1 has submitted written statement, wherein it is specifically denied that on 25.7.09 and 27.7.09 the complainant opened two numbers of Term Deposit Account with the O.P. No.1 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- each, as alleged. In fact on 25.7.09, the complainant came to the bank and deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- only vide deposit slip dated 25.7.09 for opening a fixed deposit account under DDP scheme and accordingly, an account was opened in the computer being Account No. 50016919560 and a certificate was issued, but in the mean time, as the computer system failed due to some technical problem, the amount could not be entered in the computer. On the other hand, as the working hour was over, the concerned officer asked the complainant to attend the bank on the next working day i.e. on 27.7.09 along with DDP certificate No.50016919560 to confirm the entries in the system, but on 27.7.09 the system did not accept the payment particulars against account No. 50016919560. As such, the O.P. No.1 had to open a fresh account being Account No.50016972499 and entered the payment of Rs.15,000/- deposited on 25.7.09. Thereafter, when the complainant came to the bank, as asked, the certificate being No.50016972499 was handed over to him and the earlier certificate being No. No.50016919560 was cancelled by cross marking. The complainant had made the payment for issuing one DDP certificate only, which was matured on 27.7.11. It is admitted that the complainant went to O.P. No.1 for renewing the said Term Deposit being Account No.50016972499, which was matured on 27.7.11. It is specifically denied that the complainant met with the Branch Manager and put his oral complaint before him and the Branch Manager assured to make enquiry into the matter. In fact, no such deposit had ever been made by the complainant on 27.7.09. As such, question of demand, non-payment does not arise at all. The complainant knowing fully well that he had opened only one account with the O.P. No.1 by depositing Rs.15,000/- only vide deposit slip dated 25.7.09, has falsely made this complaint with an intention to derive wrongful gain taking advantage of the cancelled DDP certificate and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. Though no formal issues were framed, but for convenience of discussion, following issues were formulated:
(i) Whether the complainant has opened two accounts on 25.7.09 and 27.7.09 respectively, amounting to Rs.15,000/- each with the O.P. No.1?
(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
5. The complainant was examined in the case as CW1 and he reiterated the same thing whatever he had stated in his complaint petition that he opened two numbers of Term Deposit Accounts with the O.P. No.1 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- each. On 31.7.11 after completion of maturity of both the terms deposit accounts, he went to the O.P.1 for renewing the same for further period of two years, but the bank officials informed him that he was having only one term deposit for an amount of Rs.15,000/- against the Account No.50016972499. Though several complaints were made, but the O.P. No.1 did not pay heed to his request and ultimately, he was compelled to file a complaint before this Forum.
6. In his cross-examination, CW1 replied that the Term Deposit Certificate and receipt dated 25.7.09 were retained by the bank/O.P. No.1. The Term Deposit Certificate and receipt dated 27.7.09 were given to him after renewing the same. The original money deposit receipt dated 25.7.09 was filed by him at the time of filing this complaint case. The Term Deposit was opened on 27.7.09 and after first maturity, it was renewed for a further period and subsequently, he had encashed the said amount. The dispute is in respect of Term Deposit dated 25.7.09. He had not given any written complaint to the bank regarding his payment from the term deposit. He did not have any documentary evidence regarding non-attending of his grievances, which was made orally.
7. On behalf of the O.P. No.1, S.K. Narjery, Chief Manager of O.P. No.1 was examined. He deposed in his evidence that on 25.7.09, the complainant came to their bank for opening a Fixed Deposit Account under DDP Scheme by depositing an amount of Rs.15,000/- and accordingly, vide Deposit Slip dated 25.7.09, he deposited the said amount of Rs.15,000/- only in the cash counter, but due to some technical problem, the amount could not be entered in the computer and the complainant was asked to come on the next working day i.e. 27.7.09. On the said date, due to such problem, the earlier certificate issued to the complainant was cancelled and new certificate was given being Account No.50016972499 in place of 50016919560. The complainant never deposited any other amount on 27.7.09. DW1 exhibited some documents. Ext.A is the deposit slip against deposit of Rs.15,000/-. Ext.B is the cash scroll register. Ext.B(1) is the relevant entry of deposit of cash amount to Rs.15,000/- on 25.7.09.
8. In his cross-examination, DW1 replied that he could not say, who represented the bank while filing the written statement, but the signature appearing in the written statement is his signature. Whatever cash deposits in their bank, the particulars there of are entered in to Ext.B. In Ext.B, the columns on the left page represent the credit side and the columns on the right page represent the debit side. In column No.11 of Ext.B(1), under the head “Name” it is written DDP New and “Nature of Account and Account Number”, it is written as Rs.15,000/-. The witness admitted that Ext.B and B(1) are wrongly maintained.
9. Another witness i.e. DW2 also admitted that Ext.B, scroll register has not been maintained properly by the bank.
10. Though the complainant claimed that he had opened two Term Deposit Accounts with the O.P. No.1 on 25.7.09 and 27.7.09 respectively, but no any document regarding opening of DDP Term Deposit Account on 27.7.09 is available in the record. Ext.A is the deposit slip dated 25.7.09. Ext.A is the certificate amounting to Rs.15,000/- dated 25.7.09 vide No.50016919560, which was cross-marking and put another number i.e. 50016972499. From scroll register i.e. Ext.B(1), it cannot be ascertained, whether any amount was deposited by the complainant on 25.7.09 or 27.7.09 amounting to Rs.15,000/- each.
11. Though the complainant claimed that he opened two accounts vide No.50016919560 on 25.7.09 and Account No. 50016972499 on 27.7.09, but no any document regarding opening of Account No. 50016972499 on 27.7.09 is available in the record. The O.P. No.1 clarified the matter through written statement and the evidence of DW1 and DW2. The complainant has also deposited counter foil of deposit of money on 25.7.11, but the complainant has failed to submit any document regarding opening of any account on 27.7.09. Under such circumstances, the complainant cannot claim the relief, as prayed for.
12. The complainant admitted that there is no written complaint made by him before the concerned authority of the bank regarding non entry of issuing certificate on payment of money dated 27.7.09. Though DW1 replied in his cross-examination that his predecessor had stated that a certificate was issued to the complainant regarding deposit of money on 27.7.09, there was also a certificate issued to the complainant on 25.7.09. He had exhibited both the certificates in this case i.e. 25.7.09 and 27.7.09, but no any document i.e. payment of money by the complainant on 27.7.09 is available in the record.
13. From the evidence on record, it appears that the scroll register has not been maintained by the O.P. No.1 properly, but from the record, it cannot be said that the complainant has opened another term deposit account with the O.P. No.1 on 27.7.09.
14. Under such circumstances, I do not find that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, both the issues are decided, against the complainant.
O R D E R
15. In the result, the complaint petition is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Given under my hand & seal of this Forum on this the 21st day of March, 2017.
Dictated & corrected by me.
(M. Nandi)
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Tinsukia Redressal Forum, Tinsukia
We agree:
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Tinsukia Redressal Forum, Tinsukia
