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

                CASE No.  CC/176/2018.

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

   20.11.18                                    28.11.18                                     25.03.22

Complainant: Pratap Narayan Banerjee                  

                        S/o Lt. Shyam Niranjan Banerjee

                        614, Sutir Math

                        PO&PS-Berhampore

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Branch Manager,

                           United Bank of India

                           Berhampore Gorabazar Branch

                           PO&PS-Berhampore

                           Dist-Murshidabad

                           Pin-742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            : Sri. Akbar Ali.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Sri. Subhash Saha.

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

                                      Sri. Subir Sinha Roy……………………………….Member.                        

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

                                    FINAL ORDER

   Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay,Member.

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

            One Pratap Narayan Banerjee (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Berhampore Gorabazar Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant was a customer of the OP Bank since the year2000 having Savings Bank Account with the United Bank of India, Berhampore Gorabazar Branch(OP) vide account No. 8459 which was later on modified on computerized account No. 082201008459.

            On the date 29.06.02, the Complainant had a balance of Rs. 10,906.60/- only in this account. But due to transferrable job, the Complainant failed to operate the account for more than 10 years. After returning to Berhampore, the Complainant came to know about the closing of his account and he was advised to submit duly filled up KYC Form along with supported documents for activation of the said account.

            Accordingly, the Complainant does the same but later on the Complainant came to know that the said account is not showing the pre-existing balance along with interest. The savings account is showing only zero balance and no interest has been credited to this account for more than 16 years. So the Complainant filed an application on 19.04.08 for restoration of the said account with the same balance. But yielding no result the Complainant sent an advocate’s letter on 16.07.18 in this respect but all went in vein.

            Considering no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case for appropriate relief before this Commission.

        After due service of notice the OP filed written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as the Complainant has not included the necessary parties such as RBI and HO of UBI. So the case is liable to be dismissed.

        On the basis of the above versions 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 this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

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

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OP.

Point No.2

             The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Commission.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The point is thus disposed of.

Point Nos. 3&4

             Both the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. The main point of dispute is that whether the OP is liable and or negligent towards the Complainant in rendering service or not. Admittedly, the Complainant had an account with the OP Bank and due to long span of 16 years of in-operation of account, the same was in dormant condition and the fund are kept in ideal fund. Due to such in-operation the Head Office of the Op Bank debited the amount of Rs.10,526.38/- dated 31.08.18 giving narration as RBI DEAF BAL TRF and the same was credited to RBI DEAF Account. The Complainant submitted all his relevant documents along with KYC Form for activation of the account which was deactivated for non-transaction for a long period. Though the account is reopened by the OP Bank but it is showing Zero balance. The amount of Rs.10,906.60/- as available in the said account till 29.06.02 but the same has not been credited to the account of the Complainant. The Complainant communicated this matter to the OP/Bank through Advocate’s letter on 16.07.18.

        Denying all the allegations made by the Complainant, the OP submits that due to long span of 16 years of in-operation of account the same was in dormant condition and those are kept in ideal form.

            Due to such in-operation, the Head Office of the OP Bank debited the amount of Rs.10526.38/- from the said account vide transaction No. 578175251 dated 31.03.18 giving narration as this RBI DEAF BAL TRF for JAN 2018. Subsequently,  as per banking system the said amount was credited to RBI DEAF Account. However, this RBI DEAF Account has been constituted under the Depositor Education and Awareness Fund Scheme, 2014 and clause 4(i) of this scheme categorically states as follows:

     ‘’Refunds and Interest:

            In case of demand from a customer/depositor whose unclaimed amount/deposit had been transferred to Fund, banks shall repay the customer/depositor, along with interest if applicable and lodge a claim for refund from the Fund for an equivalent amount paid to the customer/depositor.’’

            The RBI Notification dated March 21, 2014 vide RBI/2013-14/527 DBOD. No. DEAF Cell. BC.101/30.01.002/2013-14. Para 2 of this Notification stated that

     “….Under the provisions of this section the amount to the credit of any account in India with any bank which has not been operated upon for a period of ten years or any deposit or any amount remaining unclaimed for more than ten years shall be credited to the Fund, within a period of three months from the expiry of the said period of ten years… The depositor would, however, be entitled to claim from the bank her deposit or any other unclaimed amount or operate her account after the expiry of ten years, even after such amount has been transferred to the Fund. The bank would be liable to pay the amount to the depositor/claimant and claim refund of such amount from the fund.”

            The Ld. Advocate for the OP stated that without impleading the Reserve Bank of India and Head Office of UBI, the adjudication of the case is not possible.

             It appears form the case record that the Complainant has filed a document i.e. photocopy of pass book showing that the amount of Rs. 10906.60/- is payable to the Complainant. The OP Bank files written version stating that Rs. 10526.38/- is debited from the account of the Complainant for non-operation of the account. On the basis of that OP Bank demanded the said amount of Rs.10526.38/- from the Head Office of the said Bank. To avoid controversy and complicacy in getting the said amount of the money we are of the view that award of Rs. 10526.38/- may be passed.

             Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the respective parties, we are of the view that the OP has failed to transfer the said amount in the said account of the Complainant as per guidelines of the RBI. Therefore, in the light of above discussion it is finally decided by this Commission that the OP is deficient in service and the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get relief. This point is thus decided in favor of the Complainant.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 20.11.18 and admitted on 28.11.18. 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 allowed.

         Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                                       Ordered

that the complaint case No. CC/176/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with litigation cost of Rs. 500/-.

        The OP is directed to credit the amount of Rs.10,526.38/- to the account of the Complainant bearing No. 0822010084590 and regarding interest as per the guidelines of the RBI within 2 months from the date of this order.

        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.

          Member

Member                                                  Member                                        President.