Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/140/2020

Sanatan Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.N.R.Mohapatra

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

                                                                                          JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking the following reliefs:

            “Direct the opposite party to disburse the fixed bond amount of Rs.1,39,000/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and mental agony”.

            The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, the complainant opened a fixed deposit account vide A/c No.31190420118 with Fix No.1/90 for a sum of Rs.1,39,000/- on 13.01.1998 for a period of five years and it was renewed till 2014-15. The complainant wants to withdraw the said fixed amount and the said bond was lost somewhere. So the complainant lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. The complainant is now in need of money. So the complainant several times approached the opposite party to disburse the said fixed amount to the complainant. On 29.5.2020 the complainant gave representation to the opposite party and on 03.8.2020, the complainant issued an advocate notice to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not take any action.

            The complainant has filed the case without specific mentioning the correct account number, name of the scheme in which the amount was deposited. The complainant has stated that he has lodged FIR/written report before Tirtol P.S. on 19.02.2020. But the complainant has filed two cases bearing C.C. No.140/2020 & C.C. No.152/2020. In C.C. No.140/2020 there is an affidavit to the effect that Sanatan Pradhan and Dhirendra Pradhan, S/o. Kapila Pradhan and Baishnab Pradhan is one and same person. The complainant has made complain before the SBI authority on 29.5.2018 that his SBI Bond has been lost and his account number stands in the Bank of SBI, College Square. The SBI authorities have also denied the allegations stating as under;

            The complainant opened a savings bank A/c bearing No.31190420118 on 31.5.1998 with cash of Rs.1,000/- only, but said SB account is also inoperative till date. The complainant did not open a fixed deposit account vide A/c No.31190420118 with Fix No.1/90 for a sum of Rs.1,39,000/- on dtd.13.01.1998 for a period of five years at any point of time. The opposite party relied on the document in respect of the fixed deposit account bearing No.1/90, which shows that same is stand in the names of Swapnarani Mohanty & Satyaprakash Mohanty (Minor). The complainant is no way connected/related with the aforesaid persons. The aforesaid fixed deposit account bearing no.1/90 neither belong to the complainant nor reflect his name in the same.

            From the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that the complainant is not in a good state of mind and he has filed frivolous petitions in different names by swearing one affidavit that he is one and same person. We had also requested to the counsels to verify the document but there is no document available in favour of the complainant regarding the deposit expect the SB account in SBI. The complainant has not come in clean hands and his cases have been filed without giving any details of the particular scheme, serial number, account number in which the complainant has deposited the amount.

            We therefore held that complainant has failed to make out a case and accordingly both the cases are dismissed. Taking into consideration of the mental status of complainant who was present in this Commission we impose no cost.