District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/46/2018
(Date of Filing:-11.04.2018)
- Sri Pranab Kumar Das
Residing at 11B, Manmatho Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Dankuni,
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712311
- Smt. Dipti Das
Residing at 11B, Manmatho Nagar,P.O. and P.S. Dankuni District:- Hooghly, Pin:-712311……..Complainants
- Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Dankuni Branch,
T.N. Mukherjee Road, P.O. and P.S. Dankuni
Near Durgapur Expressway, District:- Hooghly, Pin- 712311
- State Bank of India, Dankuni Branch
T.N. Mukherjee Road, P.O. and P.S. Dankuni
Near Durgapur Expressway, District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712311
………Opposite Parties
Before: Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Shri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Smt. Babita Choudhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 15. 03. 2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
The instant case filed u/s 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant originates from his grievances arising out of the opposite party’s denial to credit to the S/B A/C of the Complainants, the maturity proceeds of a term deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- which was opened on 06.08.2015 in the name of the Complainants, on the ground that the said Term Deposit had already been en-cashed or pre-closed before the date of maturity.
The Case was actually disposed ex parte by this Commission on 30.04.2019 by the then Members, allowing the same in favour of the Complainant.
The OP was directed to refund or allow credit of the maturity proceeds of the said Term Deposit to the S/B A/C of the Complainants along with 12% interest per annum with effect from 06.08.2017 till such refund/credit.
The Opposite parties were also directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant and Rs.3o,ooo/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account for their unfair trade practice causing harassment and mental pain to the consumers.
However the OP preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission against the order passed by the district Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission in its order dtd.31.12.2021 allowed the appeal and remanded back the case to the District Commission for fresh adjudication on merit.
In the said order Hon’ble State Commission also fixed 31.01.22 for appearance of both parties before the District Commission and filing W/V by OP/Bank.
In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission the OP was granted reasonable opportunity to submit their written version and accordingly OP Bank submitted the same. In turn, the Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit afresh. OP Bank also submitted evidence on affidavit and finally both sides filed their respective BNAs.
Now, Materials on records are perused and the observations made by the Hon’ble State Commission in the matter of merits of the case are also taken into consideration.
The grievances of the Complainant have already been discussed exhaustively in the Commission’s order dtd. 30.04.2019. To avoid repetition, the same have been discussed in a rudimentary form in the first paragraph of this order.
However the series of events depicted in the complaint petition is being reiterated in chronological order.
The petitioners holding a S/B A/C with the OP bank jointly made a Term Deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- on 06.08.2015 for a period of two years with the same Bank the maturity date of which was 06.08.17.
However, allegedly when approached to the OP bank for encashment/withdrawal of the said TD on maturity by way of credit to their S/B A/C, the Complainants with utter surprise and shock came to know that the said TD was already encashed/pre-closed.
However it is claimed by the Complainant that on enquiry the OP Bank never revealed the exact mode, manner, details and other related particulars regarding the pre-mature withdrawal of the term deposit.
Subsequently the Complainant filed an FIR with the Dankuni Police Station intimating the entire developments.
A notice was also sent to the OP Bank in this regard but no substantial action was taken by the Bank to recover the amount.
However in course of fresh adjudication of the case the OP bank has filed their written version and evidence on affidavit annexing certain documents to corroborate their points.
The OP bank asserts in their representations that by making a communication to the OP Bank through a letter the Complainants requested to close the TD A/C and credit the proceeds to their S/B A/C. On receipt of such letter along with the fixed deposit advice on 02.05.2016 the Bank closed the fixed account and credited an amount of Rs.6,25,962/- in the savings Bank Account of the Complainants towards the proceeds of premature closure of the account.
The OP Bank has submitted the copies of the said letter signed by both the Complainants account holders, the TD advice, bank statement of the material period and sms and OTP logs for fraudulent transactions. The OP Bank referring to the request letter of the Complainants and the corresponding bank statement claims that after the transfer of the maturity proceeds to the S/B A/C the Complainants on 02.05.16 and 0n 03.05.2016 transferred/withdrawn the entire amount from their S/B A/C through net banking as well as issuing cheques. It is further claimed by the OP Bank that considerable amounts out of the said maturity proceeds was transferred both by way of cheque and by online transfer in favour of one Supriyo Naskar who is also a SBI A/C holder. Some other transactions were also made with an Axis Bank A/C which was also in the name of that Supriyo Naskar.
The OP Bank has also informed that they received information from Dankuni Police Station that one P.S. case No. 293/17 dtd.12.08.17 under section 419/420/406/468/471/120B of IPC has been started against some unknown person on the basis of written complaint of the complainants of this instant case. Consequent upon that the OP Bank had to supply certain documents related to the said criminal case viz. Fixed Deposit advice and the request letter of the Complainants for premature closure of the Fixed Deposit to the Police authority and the Police Authority made the formal seizure.
The OP Bank has submitted the copy of the said seizure receipt.
Now the developments as mentioned above clearly indicate that the entire issue involves fraudulent activities.
Hon’ble Apex Court has remarked that cases involving tortuous acts or criminality like fraud or cheating could not be decided by the Consumer Forums and deficiency of service has to be distinguished from the criminal Acts.
A Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi passed these remarks on March 27 order while setting aside an order of NCDRC Circuit Bench at Chennai dtd.01.02.2007.
Hon’ble Apex Court further observed
“There could not be any presumption with regard to the willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in section 2(1)(g) of the Act.
The burden of proving deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it”.
The Complainant in the case alleged that City Union Bank had transferred two demands of a total of Rs.8 lakh to the wrong account in the year 1996. The top Court noted that there were certain disputes going on between the Directors of the said Company.
“Some disputes were going on amongst the Directors of the Company and one of the Directors if allegedly had committed fraud or cheating, the employees of the bank could not be held liable if they had acted bona fide and followed the due procedure”, the top Court said.
In the case of oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Munimahesh Patel, 5 (2006) 7 SCC 655 it was held that the proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and the issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated by the Commission.
In the instant case the first and the most important issue is whether there was any fraud or not.
The Complainants claims that the TD was encashed before the date of maturity. On the other hand the OP Bank claims by producing substantiating documents thatthe TD was encashed/ credited to the S/B A/C of the Complainants prior to the maturity on the basis of an application of the Complainants themselves.
This clearly indicates that there was some uncanny design which can in simple English be termed as ‘Fraud’.
The Commission is not supposed to take a decision or to make an investigation in this regard, on examination of the documents submitted by the Complainants as well as the OP Bank.
So far as the merits of the case is concerned deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the OP Bank’s part cannot be established in unequivocal terms.
Hence it is
ORDERED
that the complainant case no.46/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
However there is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in
