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

CASE No.  CC/81/2018.

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

    08.05.18                               17.05.18                                             01.02.24

Complainant: SARIKUL ISLAM

S/O LT. Motleb Hossain,

Vill. Ekdalia Birampur, P.O And

P.S. Lalgola, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742148.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA

Lalgola Branch, P.O And P.S. Lalgola,

Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742148.

2.Ikbal Sarkar

S/O Saniul, SBI-CSP Office Cum Resident

Of- Vill. Dhulari Hat, P.O. Dier Fatepur,

 Pin-742148, Dist. Murshidabad.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             : Partha Sarathi Ghosh

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Satinath Chandra

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : None

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

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

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

            One Sarikul Islam (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lalgola Branch & Anr.(here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

                 The Complainant is a village rustic people and earned his livelihood as a daylabour but considering his estimated future expenses for his sisters wedding he preferred to save his hard earned money before the office of the OP No.1 through its Customer Services Point (CSP) centre as run by the OP No.2 at his locality vide CSP Code No. 3-226-0136 and accordingly deposited an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- on 30.03.12 and 27.09.12 respectively as on fixed term for six years with a maturity value of Rs. 1,40,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- and waited for the period of maturity as declared on 30.03.18 and 27.09.18 respectively.

                 By accepting the said amount the OP made its note on the said A/c pass book with date as well as the very date of maturity with maturity value.

                 After waiting for the period of maturity the Complainant preferred to communicate further to the office of the OP No.2 for getting sweet fruits of his investments but unfortunately he found the same as closed and in consequences thereof the Complainant then communicated the matter to the office of the OP No.1 whereat he was simply denied any service.

                 The OPs are well-aware of the fact and have assured for payment as early as possible but such assurance did not result in reality and as such the Complainant’s waiting resulted in vain causing a huge amount of loss and mental agony and above all the very purpose i.e., the sisters marriage is now in question due to breach of trust on the part of the OPs.

                 Finding no other alternatives the OPs are duly informed by sending Advocate’s notice dt. 03.04.18 but the OPs did not even bothered to reply for the same and with an ulterior intention withheld the huge unpaid claim of Rs. 2,60,000/- only of the Complainant’s causing monetary loss and mental agony.

                 Due to failure on the part of the OPs, the Complainant is suffering from loss of money, physical inconvenience and mental agony of which OPs are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant. The Complainant assessed his loss and damages of Rs. 2,60,000/- only alongwith interest @11% p.a. plus damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

             OP No.1 is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law and the case is  barred by limitation and barred by jurisdiction.

            OP No.1 stated that the statement made in complaint that the OP No.1 received Rs. 70,000/- on 30.03.12 and Rs. 60,000/- on 27.09.12 respectively from the Complainant through the OP No.2 as Fixed Term Deposit for 6 years for doubling the amount on maturity are not true.

            OP No.1 further stated that to protect the interest of the customers bank has displayed a caution notice in the Customer Sales Point (CSP) by which customers should follow what to do and what not to do. It has been clearly instructed there in Bengali language in that notice to not accept any handwritten receipt from the CSP and please accept only system generated receipt.

            OP No.1 further stated that the improvised machine supplied by the bank to the CSP and the machine also maintains the record against all transaction through online system and after completion of transaction it provides a printed slip to the customer. On the other hand the customer will get a SMS against the successful transaction made by the machine. Customers are free to go the branch of the bank to verify the transaction in absence of SMS. As per statements of the Complainant he paid a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the CSP against handwritten documents on 30.03.12 and 27.09.12. But in spite of clear instruction of the bank he didn’t claim any system generated printed receipt or Term Deposit Certificate from the CSP nor he reported the fact to the banking authority in that time, so his claim is barred by limitation of time.

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 the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

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

Decision with Reasons:

Point Nos. 1,2&3

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

                 Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is a village rustic people and earned his livelihood as a daylabour but considering his estimated future expenses for his sisters wedding he preferred to save his hard earned money before the office of the OP No.1 through its Customer Services Point (CSP) centre as run by the OP No.2 at his locality vide CSP Code No. 3-226-0136 and accordingly deposited an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- on 30.03.12 and 27.09.12 respectively as on fixed term for six years with a maturity value of Rs. 1,40,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- and waited for the period of maturity as declared on 30.03.18 and 27.09.18 respectively.

                 Ld. Adv. For the Complainant adds that the Customer Service Point Centre issued a pass book being A/c No. 32015422276, CIF No. 86178506140 in the name of the Complainant, Sakirul Islam.

                 On this point, Ld. Adv. For the OP No.1 submits that there is no existence of such account Number in the office of OP No.1 i.e. State Bank of India, Lalgola Branch. Such being the position, Complainant is not a consumer to OP No.1 i.e. the State Bank of India, Lalgola Branch.

                 Ld. Adv. For the OP No.1 further submits that on the basis of the photocopy of the pass book it may be stated that the Complainant manufactured the said document or the OP No.2 i.e. CSP manufactured the same. Over such type of incidents, FIR No. 74/17 dated 23.02.17 has already been registered with Lalgola PS under sections 4638/420/406 IPC against Rabiul Awal and Ikbal Sarkar (OP No.2).

                 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates for the parties, we are of the view that the Complainant is not a consumer to OP No.1.

                 The dispute mentioned in the complaint cannot be tried by this District Commission in this summary procedure particularly when we find that the complaint involves tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating.

                 In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 08.05.18 and admitted on 17.05.18. 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 complaint Case No. CC/81/2018 be and the same is  dismissed on contest  against the OP No.1 and dismissed ex-parte against the OP No.2.

        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                                                                                   President.