| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK Dated the 19th day of October, 2016 C.D.Case No.63 of 2014 Sri Aditya Kumar Nayak S/o: Late Ramakanta Nayak At/Po: Nayabazar Ps: Bhadrak (T) Dist: Bhadrak ……………………. Complainant (Versus) Balasore-Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Bhadrak Branch At/Po/Ps/Dist:Bhadrak Odisha …………………………..Opp. Parties For the Complainant: Sri Debasis Nayak, advocate For the Opp.Parties : Namita Nayak & Associates Advocates Date of hearing : 07.09.2016 Date of order : 19.10.2016 AFSARA BEGUM,MEMBER This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party. - The background of the facts are to the effect that the complainant is a customer and depositor of Balasore-Bhadrak Central Co-operative Bank Bhadrak branch having as many as 6 numbers of Arnapurna Deposit (Life Long income Scheme) accounts bearing No. 155,156,247,248,249 and 250. The accounts bearing No. 155 and 156 were opened on 31.12.1996 and accounts bearing No. 247,248,249 and 250 were opened on dt. 15.06.2002. At the time of opening of the account the complainant was made convinced about the lifelong benefit of the scheme, which encouraged him to opt and open the accounts. After the accounts were matured, the depositor was drawing benefits as he was entitled to under the said scheme till May 2014. But the OP Bank all of sudden stopped payment of said monthly benefits on the plea that the said scheme has been discontinued by virtue of a circular issued by the bank from H.O. The complainant, being dissatisfied with the version of the branch manager Bhadrak Branch, issued a notice on 09.06.2016 through advocate demanding payment of monthly benefits under the lifelong benefit scheme within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice failure of which the OP would be liable for cost and compensation. As the OP did not take any effective step to release the benefits as he (Complainant) has been drawing, the complainant filed this dispute claiming compensation of Rs 90,000/- and cost of Rs 5000/- as relief and prayed the Forum to issue direction to continue payment of his entitlement with retrospective effect.
- The OP (Bank) resisted the claim and contested the case that the complaint is not maintainable in law nor in facts as there is no whisper about deficiency of service of the opposite party. The OP has admitted that the complainant is a depositor of the OP Bank under Arnapurna Deposit (Lifelong Income) scheme and was allowed monthly benefits but consequent upon discontinuance of the said deposit scheme by the management of the bank, the OP being an employee of Balasore-Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., is bound to obey the orders of the authority and hence stopped payment of the benefits as the complainant has been drawing from the next month of maturity of the accounts.
- The OP has also raised that the complainant was not impleaded the necessary parties, i.e the secretary of the Bank who is to ‘Sue’ and to be ‘Sued’ under the provisions of O.C.S Act & rules and bye-law as the authority of making policy decision and executing policy decision rests with the committee of management and secretary (Chief Executive officer) of the OP Bank respectively and hence the complaint is liable to dismissed.
- It is also submitted by the OP that had he been the decision making authority of the bank, he could have responded to the notice of the complainant submitted by his advocate on 09.06.2014. As because he is mere and employee in the bank, he had nothing to do for redressal of the grievance of the complainant.
- Furthermore the OP has raised that the pass book issued to the complainant at the time of opening of the accounts bears the terms and conditions of the scheme consisting of 12 clauses for the guidance of the depositors. It is pertinent to mention that the clause-12, it is clearly mentioned that “The bank reserves the right to add, alter, amend and delete any rules relating to the deposit scheme at any time without prior notice to the depositors and such addition, alteration, amendment, and deletion shall remain valid. OP has also submitted a document which discloses that the bank authority has discontinued such deposit scheme with effect from the date of issue and has allowed the depositors under such scheme to withdraw the entire maturity value of the deposit held with the OP bank, disallowing the payment of monthly income by the branches. Submitting as above the OP has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”
- Heard both the parties and perused the relevant documents on record. Undisputedly the complainant is a depositor of the OP Bank under Arnapurna Deposit (Lifelong Income) scheme and the payment of monthly income by the OP Bank has been discontinued from June, 2014.
- The complainant claims that under the provisions of the Lifelong income scheme, he had been enjoying the benefit from the next month of the maturity of the deposit accounts till May, 2014. But the Bank refused to extend such benefit under the instruction of the competent authority of the OP Bank in the form of a circular/order. OP submits that the Bank’s competent authority has issued a circular instructing the branches to discontinue the scheme as the National Bank for agricultural and Rural Development, in course of statutory inspection of the bank, directed the bank to discontinue the said scheme with immediate effect. In executing the order, the OP has stopped the income benefit and advised the depositor (Complainant) to withdraw the entire maturity value as one time measure for final closer of the accounts. As reveals from the deposit pass book containing the rules and at clause-12 of the rules, it is clearly mentioned that the bank reserves the right to add, after, amend and delete any rules relating to the deposit scheme at any time without prior notice to the depositor. Thus we do not find any violation of contractual obligation by the OP Bank as the terms and conditions was within the knowledge of the complainant when opened the account with the O.P Bank.
- The most relevant issue as raised by the O.P that the complainant has not impleaded the bank’s management and secretary (Chief Executive Officer) who are the authority to lunch and discontinue the said scheme. According to the provisions of O.C.S Act & Rules and provisions of bye-Law, the secretary (CEO) of the Bank is to sue and to be sued in the matter of any litigation and it will not be wise to ignore the statute. Non-joinder of necessary parties to the dispute compels the Forum to from the opinion and to pass any order without impleading the competent authority, is bad in law and hence the complaint is devoid of merit.
- As it reveals from the complaint that the complainant had not mentioned anything about the mode of payment of benefit and the amount of the benefit he had been drawing from the bank and also the exact date of discontinuance of such benefit which is very much confusing to pass any order and as such the complaint itself seems to be incomplete. Moreover the complaint has not submitted the pages of the pass books containing the rules only other then the front page containing the name, address, account numbers, date of maturity, monthly installment amount, rate of interest and maturity value. Non submission of the pages containing rules by the complainant leads to believe that it is intentional and an act of suppression of facts.
- Considering from all angles with reference to the complaint, written version of O.P and evidence adduced by both the parties, it is concluded that the complainant failed to prove the allegations against the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER The complaint be and the same is dismissed against the O.P. However the OP is directed to pay the maturity value of all the accounts together with interest as applicable to savings bank account from the date of discontinue of benefits till the date of payment to the complainant which need to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and in the circumstances without cost. This order is pronounced in the open Forum on 19th day of October, 2016 under my hand and seal of the Forum. | |
