1.      Ashit Kumar Ghosh,

son of late Monilal Ghosh,

2.      Smt. Aparna Ghosh,

wife of Sri Ashit Kumar Ghosh,

residing at 40/4, Madhu  Sudan Biswas Lane,

P.S. & District – Howrah,

presently residing at 11/1, Satkari Chatterjee  Lane,

P.S. & District –Howrah.-------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.         Branch Manager,

            Indian Bank, owrahHowrah Maidan Branch,  

            Howrah.

2.         Indian Bank,

Howrah Maidan Branch,

both of 27/2, G.T. Road, P.S. & District – Howrah,

Howrah – 711 101.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               Complainants. Mr. Ashit Kr. Ghosh and Mrs. Aparna Ghosh, wife of Mr. Ashit Kr. Ghosh, by filing a joint  petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) have prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay Rs. 2,02,000/- with interest since 13-08-2013 being the amount withdrawn by the fictitious person from their joint saving bank a/c in question held with o.ps., to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for causing severe mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief facts of the case is that the complainants are maintaining a joint savings account with o.p. no. 2 being no. 488727473 since last 12 years.  And the instant account is also the salary account of complainant no. 1.  And they withdraw money from the above said account as per need and requirement. As the negotiation of marriage of their unmarried daughter, Kumari Arpita Ghosh is going on along with the construction work of their proposed building at their permanent residence of 40/A, Madhusudan Biswas Lane, Howrah – 101, complainants have deposited an amount of Rs. 3,15,646/- with o.p. no. 2 on 08-08-2013 vide  Annexure ‘P2’ collectively. On the request of the complainants, for purpose of withdrawal of money, o.ps. issued a cheque book containing 20 cheque leaves bearing sl. No. 636301 to 636320 in  July, 2013. Out of those 20 leaves, complainants used only 2 ( two ) cheque leaves bearing no. 636301 dated 02-08-2013 and 636302 dated  12-08-2013 vide Annexure ‘P3’ collectively. By the cheque dated 12-08-2013, complainant withdrew Rs. 10,000/- only and the balance amount remained Rs. 2,02,000/- in the savings bank account in question. And complainant no. 2 used to go to the bank for withdrawing any amount required by them duly signed by the complainant no. 1. But when complainant no. 2 went to the bank to update the pass book, she became astonished to see that on 12-08-2013, an amount of Rs. 2,02,000/- was withdrawn by a fictitious person, namely, Sandip Kumar Singh through one cheque bearing no. 642641 dated 12-08-2013. It is alleged by the complainants that they had never issued any such cheque in favour of any person, whatsoever. And this  arbitrary, illegal withdrawal was completed in collusion with the o.ps. Complainant filed one complaint with o.p. on 14-08-2013 and also lodged one complaint with Howrah P.S. vide  Annexure ‘P4’. It is further stated by the complainants that out of 20 cheque leaves, they used only two and rest 18 cheque leaves are lying in their custody vide annexure, Xerox copies of all cheque leaves bearing nos. 636303 to 636320.  And the amount of Rs. 2,02,000/- was withdrawn through a cheque bearing no. 642641 which was never issued by the complainants. And this very cheque leaf bearing no. 642641 is no way related with the saving bank a/c of the complainants.  That fictitious person, namely, Sandip Kr.  Singh was assisted and helped by the bank concern for which he could withdraw such a big amount from the saving bank account of the complainants. And whenever complainants went to the office of o.ps. with the request to reimburse the amount, the officials of o.ps. became violent and behaved in a bad manner.  Complainant no. 1 is on the verge of retirement as  a railway employee. They had to postpone their daughter’s marriage. O.Ps.’ such arbitrary and illegal action has totally damaged their mental peace. They are in deep mental trauma. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainants filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid relief.

3.               Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version of o.ps. and noted its contents. O.ps. have denied all allegations leveled by the complainant. But at the same time, they have sent one letter dated 20-11-2013 to the complainant stating therein that “competent authority has permitted for reimbursement of Rs. 2,02,000/- to your savings bank account”.  The instant case was filed on 19-08-2013. This itself shows that o.ps. have admitted their negligence in discharging their duties towards the complainant. Of course, they have given some conditions to be fulfilled by the complainant in the said letter. It is to be kept in mind that Rs. 2,02,000/- is at all a very small amount.  And o.ps. have agreed to reimburse such amount to complainant’s savings bank account having no. 488727473, wherefrom it is crystal clear the o.ps. have admitted their negligence in discharging their duties.  They have filed the xerox copy of the cheque leaf bearing no. 642641 dated 12-08-2013 which is allegedly signed by the complainant no. 1, Ashit Kumar Ghosh. But with open and bare eyes, any one can say that the signature of the complainant  no. 1 appearing in the cheque leaf no. 636303 is not at all  matching with the signature of the complainant no. 1 appearing in the cheque leaf no. 642641 dated 12-08-2013. Bank officials could easily differentiate both the signatures of the complainant. But they have overlooked it for which complainants are suffering since 13-08-2013. O.ps. as the custodian of the complainants hard-earned money, are required to be far more careful about their duties which they forget totally. Due to their severe negligence, complainants had to postpone their daughter’s marriage and their constructional work, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Accordingly the case succeeds on merit on contest with costs against o.ps.    

           Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

           In the result, the complaint succeeds.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 291 of 2013 ( HDF 291 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to reimburse the amount of Rs. 2,02,000/- to the complainants’ savings bank account being no. 488727473 within 15 days from the date of this order, i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon the o.ps. till actual payment.  

      That the complainants do get an award of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs.

      The o.ps. are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 23,000/- within one month from this order i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.        

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.