IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                CASE No.  CC/42/2019.

 Date of Filing:                 Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

   13.03.19                                    19.03.19                                    27.04.22

Complainant: Saddam Hossain

                        Akhtar Ali

                        Gudhia Beltalapara

                        PO-Gudhia

                        PS&Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742302

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  Branch Manager

                        State Bank of India

                        Lalbagh Branch

                        PO&PS-Murshidabad

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742149

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Subhanjan Sengupta

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                     : Debmalya Datta.

                       Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

                                      Sri. Subir Sinha Ray……………………………….Member.                        

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

                 One Saddam Hossain (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lalbagh 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 is a businessman and this is his only livelihood. The Complainant had a savings Bank Account bearing No. 33536628512 with the OP Bank. On 21.09.15 a scheme under the SBI Mutual Fund was purchased through demand draft from the OP amounting Rs.8,000/-. On 08.10.18 only Rs.5,000/- was returned with interest. But till date the rest amount of Rs.3,000/- with interest was not returned in favour of the Complainant. It was withheld by the OP.

            The Complainant facing financial crunch which was due to the negligent attitude of the OP. The Complainant had approached the OP for proper redress but the OP denied without any valid reason. The OP without assigning any kind of valid reason had denied to meet the inexpedience of the Complainant and is in a motive to somehow deceit the Complainant.

            Complainant prayed for proper redress but instead the OP showed inattention towards the Complainant. The OP instead of meeting the valid demands of the Complainant is trying to harass the Complainant.

            Complainant approached for times without number to the OP praying for the proper remedy which the OP were supposed to do but no heed paid to his cry.

            OP all over clearly proves the intention to commit and perpetuate fraud practice on the Complainant. Thus, the OP is the glaring example of deficiency in service which already falls under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as amended till date.

            After service of the notice OP put his appearance and filed written version on 22.07.2019 contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the Petitioner has no cause of action to file the case, the case is barred by law of limitation and the Complainant is not a consumer under the OP.

            OP also stated that the Petitioners petition is bad for defect of parties as SBI Mutual Fund is necessary party. The statement made in the petition that there was negligence or deficiency within the part of the OP or the petitioners is entitled to get redress is not true. It is also not true that the petitioner purchased SBI Mutual Fund through demand draft from the OP. The Petitioner returned sum of Rs.5,000/- on 08.10.18 with interest is also false.

            OP further stated that the State Bank of India and SBI Mutual Fund are not same. The Complainant purchased SBI Mutual Fund amounting Rs.8,000/- on 24.09.15 from State Bank of India, Lalbagh Branch and as per direction of the Complainant the OP prepared a Demand Draft amounting Rs.8,000/- and more Demand Draft amounting Rs.5,000/- dated 21.09.15 respectively on that day. The Complainant personally deposited the Demand Draft as per requisite of SBI Mutual Fund. The date of maturity was fixed on 08.01.18 and the Complainant got sum of Rs.6,092.55/-. After receiving the aforesaid amount, the Complainant lodged a complaint on 28.01.19.

            On 11.03.19 the remaining amount of Rs. 3,655.53 was debited on the account of the Complainant. The total maturity amount has been debited in Complainants account but the Complainant suppressing the fact has filed this petition.

            OP stated that the Complainant also received the maturity value from the SBI Mutual Fund amounting Rs.8,000/- and suppressing the fact and filed this petition to harass the OP.

            Therefore, the Petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

4. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

5. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.s1, 2, 3,4&5

All the points are taken up together for decision for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

            Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submits that the Complainant had a savings Bank Account bearing No. 33536628512 with the OP Bank. On 21.09.15 a scheme under the SBI Mutual Fund was purchased through demand draft from the OP amounting Rs.8,000/-. On 08.10.18 only Rs.5,000/- was returned with interest. But till date the rest amount of Rs.3,000/- with interest was not returned in favour of the Complainant. It was withheld by the OP.

            Ld. Adv. for the OP submits that on 11.03.19 the rest amount of Rs.3,000/- along with interest totaling Rs.3,655.53/- was credited in the account bearing no. 33536628512 of the Complainant, Mr. Saddam Hossain. In support of his contention he files account statement from 01.03.19 to 06.12.19 of the said account of the Complainant. On perusing the said statement account, Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submits that the case is required to be dismissed on full satisfaction.

            All the points are thus disposed of.

  Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 13.03.19 and admitted on 19.03.19. 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 fails.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                            Ordered

that the consumer Case No. CC/42/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP but without 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.

President

 Member                                                            Member                                        President.