BEFORE   THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM   

AT BERHAMPORE, MURSHIDABAD.   

Case No: CC/79/2012.                             Date of Filing (Original):20.07.2012.

                                                                                 Date of Order: 26.03.2013

Name of the Complainant(s)                                 Name of the Opposite party/parties                                                  

Sahiful Haque,                                                                        Branch Manager,

S/O Samsul Haque,                                                     United Bank of Inida,

 Vill. Dekha Bich Kandi, P.O. Ekghoria,                   Gramsalika Branch,

P.S. Burwan, Dist. Murshidabad.                               P.O. Gramsalika, P.S. Burwan,

                                                                                    Dist. Murshidabad.

PRESENT

                             1. Shri Sibsankar  Pal                         - President

                             2. Sri Shyamal Kumar Ghosh - Member

JUDGMENT

            The complainant’s case in brief is that he has been maintaining an S/B Account No. 0616010107930 (wrongly written as 061601017930) with the OP/ United Bank of India, Gramsalika Branch, P.O. Gramsalika, P.S. Burwan Dist. Murshidabad and he deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash with the OP Bank on 03.08.2009. According to the complainant though he deposited the aforesaid sum with the OP Bank but the OP Bank did not credit the said amount in his SB account. The complainant , however, approached the Manager of the Bank for getting redressal but the Manager of the Bank did not provide any up to date information with regard to deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- and the accrued interest . Finding no other alternative way the complainant sent legal notice to the Manager of the OP Bank but to no effect.

            Further case of the complainant is that even after depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- as he was/is not able to withdraw the said amount, he has been facing lots of financial crisis . Under the above circumstances, the complainant has been constrained to the initiate the instant case before the Forum for getting Redressal with the prayer as has been mentioned in the petition of complaint.

            The OP Bank has been contesting the case by filing written version. According to the OP, the complainant did not disclose the real fact. There is no existence of account S/B account bearing No. 061601017930 in the above bank’s record. For this reason as there was/is no entry for crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.50, 000/- in the Bank’s records, the OP was/is not able to pay the amount. Further case of the OP Bank is that the Bank officials informed the complainant to approach the Manager of the Bank and the complainant was also asked to submit claim petition whereupon the Manager would send his claim petition to the Head Office and on getting permission from the Head office, the Bank would refund his money. Ignoring the advice of the OP Bank, the complainant has sent the legal notice to the Bank and only in order to harass the Bank; the instant case has been filed. With all the above, the OP Bank has prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as has been prayed for and/or is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank in the matter of settlement of the claim or not.

                                                          Decision with reason

            At the very outset it is very much pertinent to mention that neither of the parties has adduced any oral evidence. Rather, both parties agreed to conduct the case on the basis of documents submitted before the Forum. No written argument has also been filed by either of the parties. Accordingly, oral arguments on behalf of both parties were heard.

The complainant in support of his case has submitted Xerox Copies of counter-foil showing deposit of amount of Rs.50, 000/- on 03.08.2009 with the OP Bank in his S/B account NO. 7930, Xerox copy of statement appearing in the Pass-Book, Xerox copy of letter dt. 16.3.10 issued by the complainant to the OP Bank( having been received by the OP Bank on 20.3.10), legal notice and some other documents which are not relevant to be considered for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute.

            At the very outset of his argument Ld. Lawyer for the OP bank has submitted that practically there is no Bank account No. 061601017930 in the name of the complainant having been maintained with the OP Bank as has been mentioned in the petition of complaint and for that reason the complainant is not entitled to get any relief on the basis of the petition and the documents submitted before the Forum. The Ld. Lawyer for the OP Bank has further submitted that if assuming for the sake of argument that the Bank received the amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash through the counter, in that case the casher who received the amount is only liable and the Manager or the Bank Authority cannot be held liable or responsible in any way.

     We have given our anxious consideration over the submissions of the Ld. Lawyer for the OP Bank. Though in the instant case the OP bank has not urged any point with regard to maintainability of the case alleging that the instant petition of complaint is time-barred under Section 24A  of Consumer Protection Act but as a pre-cautionary measure and in order to settle the dispute, we are of the view that this matter should be discussed .

            Under Section 24A of the C.P. Act, the complainant has to submit an application before the Consumer Forum within two years from the date of cause of action. In this case We find from the Xerox copy of counter-foil that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited with the Bank on 03.08.2009 and the case has been filed on 20.07.2012 which is obviously long after the period of limitation of 2 years. But in this regard we should not be oblivious of the position that the complainant by a letter dt. 16.03.2010 has informed the Branch Manager of the OP Bank informing that the amount of Rs.50, 000/- which was deposited in his account on 03.08.2009 was not credited in his account and requested the Bank Authority for getting redressal. Admittedly, the said letter was received by the OP Bank on 20.03.2010 which gets effective support from the Xerox copy of the said letter. There is no dispute that till today the Bank Authority has not settled the claim. In this regard we are armed with the decision reported in Vol. III 2011 CPJ 507(NC) in case of Lakshmi Bai & Others Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd & Others wherefrom it is evident that in computing the limitation period, the cases where payment is not made would inter alia fall in the category, i.e., “Cases where claim is made to Nodal Officer or Nodal Officer has forwarded the claim to Insurance Co or claim has been directly filed with Insurance Co. Within 2 years of death and the claim has remained undecided, in such cases the cause of action will continue till the date Respondent/Insurance Co. pays or rejects the claim”.

            From the Xerox copy of letter dt. 16.03.2010 it is very much clear that while within 2 years from the date of deposit (03.08.2009) the complainant has informed the Bank Authority in the matter of getting redressal, so, the cause of action will continue and for that reason there cannot be any shred of doubt that the instant case does not fall within the mischief of limitation period u/S 24A of the C.P. Act.

            Now let us dive into the merit of the case. From the Xerox copy of the counter-foil which remains unchallenged, it appears that on 03.08.2009 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in his SB account No. 7930. It  is true that the complainant has made a mistake to put a 0(zero) in  between the digits 1 & 7 in the account number appearing in the petition of complaint  but taking the advantage of such omission, the Bank Authority cannot shirk their entire responsibility thereby giving a permanent good bye  to the complainant’s case. In this regard it may be mentioned that actual number of the SB. Account is 7930 and all other pre-digits are nothing but the numbers of the nature of account for which the same is being maintained. This being the situation, we do not find any substance in the argument as has been urged by the Ld. Lawyer on behalf of the Bank Authority. We fail to understand even after the complainant approached the Bank Authority with the letter dt. 16.03.10 (received on 20.3.10) why they remained silent over the matter. It was the incumbent duty on the part of the Bank Authority to find out the irregularity for not crediting the amount in the account of the complainant. But instead of doing so the Bank Authority kept themselves mum. Such evading act on the part of the Bank Authority no doubt is the glaring example of deficiency in service on the part of the Bank Authority.

            With regard to second argument urged by the Ld. Lawyer for the Bank Authority we take into consideration that even assuming that the cashier of the Bank Authority received the amount across the counter but in that case the casher is nothing but the agent of the Principal (OP Bank) . It has been well settled by a plethora of decisions that the Principal/ Master is vicariously liable for the act of the agent. This being the situation, the Bank Authority cannot also evade his responsibility by not giving any proper redressal to the complainant even after receiving such amount of Rs.50,000/- . Therefore, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents submitted before the Forum and the position of law as has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the non-action on the part of the Bank Authority has caused mental agony to the complainant and in this way the complainant has also been harassed and the non-action of the OP prompted the complainant to come before the Forum for redressal after incurring a considerable expenditure .For this reason, we feel that if a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation is awarded in favour of the complainant it would subserve the interest of both parties. At the same time, the OP Bank Authority must credit the amount of Rs.50, 000/- in the S/B account of the complainant together with the accrued interest from the date of deposit of the amount (03.08.2009).

            In the result, the case succeeds.

            Hence,

O  R  D  E  R  E  D

that the Consumer Complaint No. 79/2012 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest with cost of litigation Rs.500/-.

            The OP Bank Authority is hereby directed to credit the amount of Rs.50, 000/- in the S.B. account NO. 0616010107930 on and from the date of deposit of the amount ( 03.08.2009) together with accrued interest as per Bank norms within 15 days from the date of this order , failing which further interest @ 7% p.a. will be levied upon the amount of Rs.50,000/- and its accrued interest from the date of filing of the case i.e. 20.07.2012.

The Bank Authority is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order failing which the OP shall have to pay interest @ 9% p.a. upon the awarded amount of Rs.10,000/-

            In the event of non-compliance of the order above within the prescribed time limit, the complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.

            Copies be supplied to both parties free of cost.

MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT