West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/12/2024

Chhanda Show - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager , Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Rajib Majumdar

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that one Chhanda Show, W/o. Shyamal Show is a permanent resident of Shantiniketan, Indirapally, P.O. and P.S.- Bolpur, Pin- 731204 within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission.

            It is the further case of the complainant that she has a savings account bearing No. 39930100020073 and the said account has been opened on 15/02/2022 in the branch of OP.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 08/12/2023 the account balance has been shown of Rs. 4,978/- and surprisingly it has been shown in the account book as Lien Rs. 45,000/-. On 04/07/2024 the account balance has been shown of Rs. 10,557.16 cr. And Lien Rs. 45,354. As such, the complainant does not able to withdraw the money from her account as deposited under Lakshmi Bhandar Scheme every month.

            It is the specific case of the complainant that on the reason of Lien of the said amount of Rs. 45,345/- and the OP harassed the complainant with an ulterior motive.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this complaint before this Forum/Commission for proper relief and prays for:

1. To pass an order directing the OP, vacate the Lien amount which is hold by the OP in the savings account being No. 39930100020073 of the complainant.

(Page 1 of 3)

 

 

 

2. To pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation, causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
3. To pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
4. Other relief/reliefs.

It appears from case record that the OP Bank did not appears before this Commission after receiving the notice. None appears and no step is taken by the OP Bank. No written version has yet been filed by the OP Bank. As a result, vide order No. 04 dated 27/03/2024 this Commission ordered for running of the instant case exparte against the OP Bank.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant. Those have been compared with original documents. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of his case.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant has an account bearing No. 39930100020073 lying with the OP Bank and as such the complainant is a consumer under the OP as per Sec. 2 (7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point No. 2:

            In this case, the cause of action arose on and from 08/12/2023 and the case has been filed on 25/01/2024 and, as such, it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 2019 and, as such, the instant complaint is not barred U/S 69(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

            Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Notification No. G.S.R. 892(E). dated 20^th December, 2022 by Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi is Rs. 50 lakh.

            The complainant is resident of Bolpur, Birbhum, which is under the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Sec. 34(2) of C.P. Act, 2019.

            Hence, this Commission has Pecuniary Jurisdiction as well as Territorial Jurisdiction.

 

 

(Page 2 of 3)

 

 

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the Bank authority without any cogent reason, Liened the said amount and harassed the complainant with an ulterior motive.

Moreover, after receiving the notice the OP Bank did not appear to contest this case.

Thus, the OP Bank appears to have admitted the fact. It is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that there is/was deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(11) of the C.P. Act, 2019. Moreover it is a case of  unfair trade practice as per   Sec. 2(47) of C.P. Act, 2019 on the part of the OP Bank.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant has able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Point No. 4:

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D,

                           that the instant C.C. Case No. 12/2024 be and same is allowed exparte with cost.

The OP Bank is directed to vacate this Lien amount which is hold by the OP in the savings account being No. 39930100020073 of the complainant.

The OP Bank is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant/petitioner and also pay Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP members within 45 (Forty five) days from this date

of order, in default the complainant would be at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.