C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/65
COMPLAINANT : Anichhur Rahaman
S/o. Kechhubuddin Seikh
Resident of Palsunda,
P.O. Palsunda, P.S. Tehatta
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Branch Manager,
Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank,
Palsunda Branch,
Vill. & P.O. Palsunda,
P.S. Tehatta, Dist. Nadia
2) Regional Manager,
Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank
Having its office at P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 7th January, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he has a cash credit account No. CC/77 in the OP bank at Palsunda Branch and he operates the same regularly. It is his further case that on 24.08.09 the bank credited Rs. 5500/- and on 27.08.09 a sum of Rs. 70,000/- which were actually wrongly inserted in the deposit column of his account as the money was not at all deposited by him and subsequently the same was penned through by the bank. On 29.08.09 he deposited a sum of Rs. 97,000/- which was adjusted with the amount of his account. On 14.09.09 he withdrew a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- and on 15.09.09 he deposited a further sum of Rs. 2,69,000/- and on 17.09.09 the amount of Rs. 97,000/- was deposited by cheque which was subsequently penned through. Thereafter, several transactions were done in the said amount, but the said amount of Rs. 97,000/- was not included in the total amount, nor he was allowed to withdraw the said amount also. So he requested the OP several times to make the entry correct and allow him to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 97,000/-, but to no effect. Thereafter, on 17.11.09 he made a complaint to the OP No. 2 (Regional Manager of the bank), but till date no action is taken by him in this regard. This activity of the OPs has caused serious loss to this petitioner. So having no other alternative he has filed this case as the OPs refused him to allow withdrawal of the amount from his account on 02.06.10 and he has also prayed for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1, Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Palsunda Branch has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case as 02.06.10 was Wednesday which is a nonpublic working day for the OP bank No. 1. So no question of refusing the complainant on that day does arise. He has also submitted that the OP No. 1 sanctioned a cash credit loan in favour of the complainant with a limit of Rs. 3,00,000/-. In a cash credit loan account the loanee / complainant can withdraw any amount of money upto the sanctioned limit and the outstanding balance in the account should never exceed the sanctioned limit. It will be clear from the true copy of statement of account that the outstanding balance of the said loan account is always within the sanctioned limit and before filing this case the complainant could easily withdraw Rs. 97,000/-. So no question of adopting any unfair trade practice on his part does arise. He further submits that in spite of all these if this Forum holds that there is fault in the then Branch of the bank then this OP submits that the then Branch Manager, Sri Swapan Kumar Saha is personally responsible for that fault and not this OP. So this case is liable to be dismissed against him.
The OP No. 2 has filed a separate written version, inter alia, stating that this case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission that the complainant submitted a letter to this OP signed by the complainant on 20.10.09 and the same was received by this office of the OP on 30.10.09 from which it is clear that the complainant has no grievance against this OP. In spite of that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner on 17.11.09 this OP wrote a letter to the OP No. 1 on 25.11.09 at which the then Manager, Sri Swapan Kumar Saha since transferred replied on 03.04.10, but he did not act as per his commitment made in his reply. It is not correct that at the act of this OP the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced and suffered monetary loss also. He has filed this case only to harass this OP. So he has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with the written versions filed by the OPs and the annexed documents filed by both the parties and after hearing the arguments advanced by ld. lawyer of both sides it is available on record that admittedly the complainant Anichhur Rahaman had a CC loan account No. CC/77 in the OP bank No. 1. It is also available on record that the transactions are still going on in that account. Complainant’s specific allegation is that on 29.08.09 he deposited Rs. 97,000/- by a cheque bearing No. 549237 and the Branch Manager adjusted the same amount in his loan account. The xerox copy of the loan account is filed by the complainant which also shows that on 29.08.09 Rs. 97,000/- was credited in the loan account of the complainant which was subsequently penned through and the balance was shown after deducting the same amount. The complainant’s submission is that he thereafter made transactions on several dates and brought it to the notice of the then manager of the bank who again credited the amount of Rs. 97,000/- on his behalf on 19.09.09 and accordingly, balance was done but subsequently that amount was penned through by the then manager and the balance amount was also corrected. The complainant thereafter, requested the bank manager to credit that amount in his favour, but to no effect. So he made a complaint to the Regional Manager of the bank (OP No. 2) on 17.11.09. On receipt of the complaint, the Regional Manager sent a letter to the then Branch Manager asking him to give a detailed report about the complaint on 25.11.09 against which the then manager intimated him that he would reply to his query by 10.04.10 positively. But finally he did not send any reply or any explanation regarding that complaint. The OP No. 2 in his written version has also stated this fact. On the other hand, OPs submit that in their ledger book the alleged amount was not credited in favour of the complainant. So the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit about the alleged deposit of Rs. 97,000/- in his favour. But at the same time it is stated by the OPs in the written versions that in spite of all these if there is any fault in the branch then the then manager of the concerned branch Sri Swapan Kumar Saha will be personally liable for that fault and not this OPs. From this pleading we find that the bank authority, i.e., the OPs are not sure whether any fault was done by the then manager, Sri Swapan Kumar Saha or not. Admittedly, Sri Swapan Kumar Saha was the manager of the bank at that time and the entry of the loan account was made by him. The complainant filed the xerox copy of the counter foil of the deposit slip dtd. 18.08.09 which shows that he deposited Rs. 97,000/- by a cheque bearing No. 549237 and the said amount was credited in his account on 29.08.09. There is no explanation on the side of the OPs why the amount was credited in the loan account of the complainant after a lapse of 11 days. The OPs have not filed the alleged cheque or the cheque book which remains in their custody to show that no such cheque was deposited by the complainant. Rather they have fixed all the responsibilities upon the then manager one Swapan Kumar Saha who acted as an officer of the bank at that time. From the deposition of the OPW 1 we find that Swapan Kumar Saha is still in service and he is the officer of another branch. But on his behalf no evidence is adduced by the OPs in support of their contention. OPs have relied upon a letter dtd. 20.10.09 signed by the complainant only. But its contents are written by some other person which speaks that the complainant lodged the complaint being induced by some other and he is at present satisfied with the transactions of the bank. This is not a sufficient document to prove that the complainant did not deposit any amount as claimed by him on 29.08.09 as the pass book itself speaks that the amount was deposited on that date which was credited to his account and subsequently it was penned through. The said amount was credited in his account on 19.09.09 and subsequently it was penned through by the then manager. Even in reply of interrogatories the OPW 1, i.e., that present manager has stated that Swapan Kumar Saha may adduce evidence if necessary. But actually no evidence of Sri Swapan Kumar Saha is filed by the OPs. The OPs cannot avoid their liability after shifting the burden upon the then manager Sri Swapan Kumar Saha as the complainant had transactions with the OP bank and not personally with Swapan Kumar Saha. Swapan Kumar Saha was a mere employee of the bank and the complainant is a customer of the bank. Bank is the principal authority and Swapan Kumar Saha is his servant. So the liability rests upon the bank if any fault was done by Swapan Kumar Saha. We have already discussed that the OPs have not filed any document to establish that the alleged amount of Rs. 97,000/- was not deposited by the complainant by a cheque bearing No. 549237 dtd. 18.08.09. Even after receipt of the complaint from the complainant on 29.05.10 the OP No. 2 did not take any positive step for redressal of the grievance of the complainant.
Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case our considered view is that there is gross deficiency of service on the part of the OPs for not disposing the complaint of the complainant as they merely shifted the burden upon the then manager Swapan Kumar Saha. We do further hold that the complainant has become able to prove his case and he is entitled to get the reliefs as pryed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/65 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The OPs are directed to regularize the CC account No. 77 making entry of Rs. 97,000/- in its deposit column and to adjust the said amount along with balance amount of loan within a period of one month since this date, in default the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him + Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost. The OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly or severally liable to pay this amount to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will accrue interest @ 10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
