This is a complaint made by M/s. S. S. Marketing, proprietor Swapan Bhattacharya, son of Late Jagannath Bhattacharya, 188/2, Rai Bahadur Rd., P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-53 against (a) Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Buroshibtala Branch, 231/4, Rai Bahadur Rd., Kolkata-53, (b) Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Head office 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700 001, P.S.- Hare Street, (c) Zonal Manager, United Bank of India, Zonal Office, 627, Diamond Harbour Rd., (Central Region), Kolkata-34, P.S.- Behala and (d) The Manager, United Bank of India, Customer Care & Grievance Cell, Head Office, 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700 001, P.S.- Hare Street, praying for award against OP directing them to pay Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation for loss, injury and mental agony suffered and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant had a Cash Credit Account at Buroshibtala Branch, Kolkata-34, Behala of which limit was Rs.75,000/-. Complainant was having a fixed deposit account  being No.10223/36 in the joint name of his wife Mrs. Shampa Bhattacharya and himself of Rs.57,030/- and maturity value of Rs.75,584/- Thereafter, the cash credit limit was increased to Rs.83,000/-. In 2003 the limit was increased to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Bank took another fixed deposit A/C No.11051/36 which was also in the Joint name of his wife. Due to some reasons Complainant was incurring loss in his business and went personally to the Branch to meet Mr. Dulal Banik who was the Branch Manager and asked him that he cannot continue the current account. But Dulal Banik gave a verbal commitment that his due would be adjusted against his fixed deposits after which the bank will give clearance letter. Complainant though that his account would be closed after adjusting from the fixed deposit. In the meantime, the Branch Manager retired and Complainant met the new Branch Manager, Arun Mondal, who also assured about such adjustment. But, Mr. Arun Mondal also retired putting the Complainant into dark. Thereafter, Complainant was called for a meeting at Buroshibtala Branch. Complainant showed all the papers to the Regional Manager. Complainant said that he closed the account in 2008. But, it was not closed. Complainant met Regional Manager who admitted that there was fault and asked the Complainant to pay Rs.30,000/-. Complainant told that he was unable to pay Rs.30,000/-. In this way the talks between the Complainant and Bank officials continued. But nothing was done. So, Complainant filed this case. For deficiency of services claimed compensation and litigation cost.

            OPs filed written version and denied all the allegations in the complaint. They have also denied that this Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. Complainant files this complaint with mala fide intention. Further, it is contention of the OP that Complainant did not maintain the account properly and so, liability of the Complainant in the account became non-performing asset. So, OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.

 Decision with reasons:

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against that OP, United Bank of India, filed questionnaire against which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. United Bank of India also filed evidence to which Complainant files questionnaire and OPs made reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the compensation and litigation cost for which he has made claim. It is the allegation of the Complainant that OP being a nationalized bank, harassed the Complainant and did not pay any heed to his requests. It appears that Complainant is the proprietor of one S. S. Marketing and so OP has raised that he is not a consumer. It is because a commercial organization cannot be a consumer. However, there are different views upon this. If a person acts on that score the point raised by OPs cannot be sustained.

            OPs have alleged that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute because for such disputes SARFAESI Act is there. But, we are of the view that the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant for deficiency of service of a nationalized bank and the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply filed by both the parties clearly reveals that there is a little bit deficiency in services due to which Complainant was compelled to attend bank on several occasions. This is most unwanted and it gives rise to the situation where Complainant is entitled to get compensation. Of course, the amount is on the excessive side.

             Accordingly, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- are awarded object of justice would be served.

Hence,

ordered

CC/148/2016 and the same is allowed in part on contest. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 11% p.a.