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

                                              CASE No.  CC/208/2017.

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

   05.12.17                                    02.01.18                                    01.03.23

           Complainant: Abdur Rajjaque

S/O- Md. Amiruddin Mondal,

 Vill- Mondalpara, PO & PS- Hariharpara,

Pin- 742166

-Vs-

    Opposite Party:  1.Branch Manager, United Bank Of India,

 Hariharpara Branch

Vill & PO & PS- Hariharpara, Pin- 742166

     2. Regional Manager, Murshidabad Region,

United Bank Of India,

Murshidabad Region, Gorabazar,

PO & PS- Berhampore, Pin- 742101

      3. Department In-Charge, Cutomer Dipartment,

United Bank Of India

Heard Office, 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kol- 700001

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                    : Self.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1       : None.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2       : Subhash Saha

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3       : None.

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

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

         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 Abdur Rajjaque (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, United Bank of India & Ors. (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 customer of the Op bearing Account No. 3364/96/2000. The Complainant along with two of his partners namely Asanuddin and Sariful Islam was the account holder of the OP bank namely United Bank of India, Hariharpara Branch, being A/c No. 3364/96/2000, whereby the Complainant had a fixed deposit in the said account which was matured on 13.06.08. Thereafter, the Complainant on 30.07.08 submitted a request letter for the encashment of the matured amount against the said fixed deposit before the Bank Manager to which the Bank Manager instructed the Complainant to come for the collection of his matured amount in the said bank after few days. As such after few days the Complainant further went to the bank to meet the Bank Manager but he did not receive the said matured amount. Thereafter the Complainant regularly in short intervals went to the bank on several occasions and also submitted applications for providing him with the matured amount but each time the Complainant faced only harassment and the Bank Manager on every occasion made some lame excuses to turn down the Complainant and took irrelevant time for the same. Subsequently, in the mean time the Bank Managers was transferred but none of them took any step towards providing the Complainant with his said matured amount. Finally the Complainant on 04.08.17 lodged a complaint before the Department in Charge, Customer Department, United bank of India, Head office, 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001 regarding this unfortunate situation and thereafter when the Head Office enquired about this matter from the Branch Manager it was intimated to the Head Office by the Brach Manager that the said RIP despite being matured on 13.06.08 could not be closed by the bank due to its non existence in the finacle and the said reason was also intimated to the Complainant by the Bank Manager. Despite duly depositing the fixed deposit amount in the bank and having proper fixed deposit certificate issued by the bank in possession of the Complainant the Bank Manager is intentionally and with some ulterior clandestine motive is evading his responsibility towards providing the Complainant with the said matured amount against the fixed deposit of the Complainant. As such the Complainant files this instant case against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          OP No. 1 & 3 has not filed written version. OP No. 2, Regional Manager, UBI, Murshidabad Region is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is hit by Limitation Act.

          The specific case of the OP in short is that as per banking system before and after computerization i.e. in the year 2008 one software name FINDART was used wherein all the old manual record/documents were transformed to CBS system. All such documents or records automatically transformed to current CBS system via FINDART system. In this instant case no such fixed deposit was or is found in the system. As finacle has no existence of such fixed deposit, so closure of fixed deposit by making payment does not arise. Furthermore the date of maturity was 13.06.08. The Complainant is bound to prove that he made request to BM for encashment of matured amount of fixed deposit on 30.07.08 or on subsequent date. The actual fact is suppressed by Complainant. This OP submits that any one of the partners may premature the fixed amount declaring that the so called fixed deposit has been lost from his custody and as per bank norm after executing bond any one of the partner withdrew the amount before 2008 or earlier or before installation of FINDART system. Furthermore the bank will preserve documents for 10 years. All the documents like letters produced by the complainant has been created for the purpose of this instant case. After lapse of long time (10 years) the Complainant by making false statement has filed the instant case for unlawful gain.

          There is no deficiency on the part of this OP. By making false statement and for unlawful gain by suppressing real fact the Complainant has filed the instant case keeping the other partners in dark. On the above ground the case 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 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.

The point to be taken is that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. The case was fixed for hearing of argument for several times but none appeared on behalf of the Complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the OP was present at the time of hearing of argument on 23.02.23. It is submitted that the Complainants fixed deposit was matured on 13.06.08 as alleged in the complaint. The case was filed on 05.12.17. Such being the position the instant case is barred by the law of limitation.

After hearing the Ld. Advocate for the OP we peruse the materials on record and we find that the submission made by the Ld. Advocate for the OP is correct.

Ld. Advocate for the OP further submitted that the Complainant has stated in his complaint that on 30.07.08 he submitted a request letter for the encashment of the matured amount. But the Complainant has failed to establish the fact that he submitted a request letter.

After hearing the Ld. Advocate for the OP we peruse the materials on record and we find no such request letter or copy of such request letter that was presented to the Bank Manager concerned and the Bank Manager concerned received the same. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Complainant has filed a copy of letter dated 30.07.08 written by the Complainant Abdur Rajjaque and addressed to the Bank Manager but there is no receiving endorsement on the said copy of letter on the part of the Bank concerned.

On perusing the materials on record, we find no original fixed deposit certificate on the basis of which the complaint has been filed. We are in the dark whether the original fixed deposit certificate is in the hands of the Complainant or not.

We have already mentioned that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. The date of hearing arguments are being fixed since12.08.20. Such being the position we are of the view that the Complainant is not at all interested in the instant case.

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

  Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 05.12.17 and admitted on 02.01.18. 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/208/2017 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the OPs.

      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.