IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/28/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
27.02.2019 07.03.2019 03.05.2023
Complainant: Md. Mizanur Rahaman,
S/o- Late Abdul Majid Mondal,
Vill- Ghasipur,
P.O. + P.S.- Doulatabad
Dist- Murhsidabad
Pin-742302
-Vs-
Opposite Party Branch Manager(AD Branch),
State Bank of India, 1A, Chowdhury
Churamoni Road,
P.S.-Berhampore,
P.O. – Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Pranab Kumar Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Satindranath Chandra
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Md. Mizanur Rahaman (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager (AD Branch) (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant filed the instant petition stating that the Complainant had a savings account vide A/C No. 850733599417 and CIF No. 30126709352 with the O.P. Bank. Till 29.12.2015 the balance of the said Savings Account of the Complainant was Rs. 3,41,597/-. On 25.09.2016 the balance in the said Savings Account was Rs. 3,51,965.28/-. On 02.12.2016 the said O.P. Bank had debited Rs. 3,50,000/- from the savings account of the Complainant. After that when the Complainant came to know the said fact he went to the branch office of the O.P. and enquire about the debit, the said bank declined to provide any satisfactory answer. And on updating the passbook the Complainant came to know that the said Account has been “SET HOLD” by Bank Authority on 29.12.2015 and on 02.12.2016 the Bank suo moto restored the said hold and debited the said amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
Considering it as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. the Complainant filed the instant case before this Commission praying for refund of Rs. 3,51,965.28/- along with interest and a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
Defence Case
After due service of the notice, the O.P. appeared by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action to file this application against the O.P. and they had complied the order of the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata dated 7th November, 2016.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is the case of the Complainant that he is a customer of the O.P. Bank having saving account no. 850733599417 and CIF No. 30126709352. On 25.09.2016 the balance in the said savings account of the Complainant was Rs. 351965.28/- but on 02.12.2016 the O.P. Bank has debited Rs. 3,50,000/- from the savings account of the Complainant. After updating the passbook the Complainant found that his account has been “Set HOLD” by the bank authority on 29.12.2015 without any reasonable cause on 02.12.2016 the bank authority suo moto restored the said hold and debited the said amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
The O.P. in the Written Version stated that it is found from the bank’s record that on 11.08.2016 the Investigation Officer, Bank Fraud Section, Detective Department, Kolkata Police Head Quarter submitted one report of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in connection with P.S./D.D Case No. 52 DT. 23.02.2016 u/s 120B/419/420/467/468/471 IPC, the case title was State Vs. Jewel Rana & Others which reveals that a sum of Rs 8.6 crores has been fraudulently transferred from the Axis Bank’s online wallet to different bank accounts of West Bengal and huge number of bank accounts of different nationalized and private bank in which those misappropriated money has been transferred have been put under debit hold on the strength of notice u/s 102 of Cr.PC. In his report he has given a list of those accounts of different banks in which the said amount was kept. (The copy of the repot of the Investigation Officer is annexed as “Annexure1”.)
That on 17.08.2016 said Investigation Officer filed one petition and stated that he has no objection to return back the misappropriated money to the petitioner (Axis Bank) and he prayed to defreeze those accounts to return the misappropriated fund. (The copy of the petition of the Investigation Officer is annexed as “Annexure 2”.)
That Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 20.08.2016 ordered that “Let the amount of Rs. 8.6 Crores lying with different banks as per report Dt. 11.08.2016 be returned to the account of the different complainant’s banks that is the Axis Bank Ltd. being vide account No. 100010633007 after complying all formalities”. (The copy of the Order of the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is annexed as “Annexure 3”.)
That according to the order of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th November, 2016 the competent authority of O.P. sent a list of accounts with quantum of money and advised to debit those accounts and credit the fund to Axis Bank vide A/c No. 100010633007. As the account of this complainant was involved for an amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- as given in the said list. But due to shortage of fund on 02.12.2016 this O.P. has debited only Rs. 3,50,000/- from the account of the Complainant and credited the same into the account of Axis Bank and set hold to the account. (The Letter of the competent authority of the O.P. along with the list of accounts is annexed as “Annexure 4”.)
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the parties and the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the O.P. we find that the O.P. has acted according to the order of the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. So, we are of the view that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. and the Complainant failed to prove his case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 27.02.2019 and admitted on 07.03.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/28/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member Member President.
