IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /68/2015.

 Date of Filing:    04.06.2015.                                          Date of Final Order: 17.03.2016

Complainant: Jagabandhu Mondal, S/O Late Panchanan Mondal, Vill. Keshab Nagar,

                        P.O. Cossimbazar Raj, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742102

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Brach Manager, State Bank of India, Berhampore Br. P.O. Berhampore,

                        Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding  Member.

 The complainant /Jagabandhu Mondal as a bonafide consumer has filed this complaint u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986, against the OP/State Bank of India, Berhampore Branch. The complainant has a Savings Bank Account being No. 1294046301 with the OP Bank wherefrom he wanted to withdraw some amount on 19.12.2014 but he failed to do that due to some reasons. He asked the Branch Manager but was not satisfied. Then he sent Ld. Lawyer’s notice to the OP on 07.02.2015 but till now the OP did not pay any heed to the matter. So, the complainant is unable to make any transactions with this account which is a deficiency in service and for that he came to this Forum for proper redress.

On the other hand the OP/Bank appeared in this case by filing written version where he          denied all the material allegations. According to the OP the complainant is the holder of the said account and the complainant cannot operate the account is not true. The complainant regularly withdrew amount from the account. So, the OP/Bank has no deficiency in service; for that the case is liable to be rejected.

Perused the document in the record, we observed that both the parties produced contradictory information. The complainant described in his complaint that he tried to know the current status at ATM when failed then he want to withdraw amount from cash counter again failed and went to the Branch Manager to know the reason of irregularities. But the OP produced one letter that the complainant had applied for cheque book and ATM card. On the other hand the OP stated in the written version that the complainant is a consumer of his bank, but the said account is not belong to the complainant, but same OP produced the papers related to the relation of the complainant with the said account as well as the OP has also submission that he issued the cheque book and ATM card to the complainant for the said account.

Besides, these contradictory information record shows that the complainant was shown the cause notice due to non-prosecution of the case. Unfortunately, the complainant failed to appear and explain.

However, we find that there is no impediment to dispose of the complaint petition due to non-prosecution.

            Hence,

                                                     Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 68/2015 be and the same is hereby disposed for non-prosecution.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.