Orissa

Cuttak

CC/110/2017

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Uco Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S C Das & associates

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                      C.C.No.110/2017

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo,

Narasinghpur Medical Stores,

At/PO/PS:Narasinghpur,

Dist:Cuttack,Orissa.                                                             ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Branch Manager,UCO Bank,

At/PO/PS:Narasinghpur,

Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.        Deputy Zonal Head,

UCO Bank Zonal Office,

UCO Bank Building,C/2,Ashok Nagar,

Unit0II,Bhubaneswar-751009.

 

3.         The Chief Manager,

UCO Bank Head Office-1,4^th Floor,

Human Resource Management Deptt.,

10BTM Sarani,Kolkata-700001.

 

4.          Raghunath Sahoo,

S/O:Late Sadananda@Gandu Sahoo,

Near Hatipokhari,Paikapadapatana,

PO/PS: Narasinghpur,Dist:Cuttack.                                       ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    11.09.2017

Date of Order:  26.08.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. S.C.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1,2 & 3 :         Mr. B.B.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.4          :            None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                         

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant has an account under Laghubachat Yojna with account no.04060110075098 with the O.Ps.  He had deposited a total sum of Rs.77,600/- from 17.6.10 to 5.1.14 through Collecting Agent who is O.P No.4 in this case.  On verification he could know that only an amount of Rs.2100/- was lying in his account and a sum of Rs.56,000/- has been deducted which he could know on 5.1.14.  Inspite of all his efforts he could not know the reason for which on 27.8.15 he had made a written complaint but no action was initiated for which on 11.3.16 he had lodged another complaint  through R.P. with A/D to the Regional Manager,Kanika  Chack Branch,Cuttack.  Still then no action was taken for which he was compelled to send a legal notice on 9.3.17 through R.P. with A.D to O.P No.1 which was received on 14.3.17.  Copy of the legal notice was also received by O.P No.2 on 10.3.17.  But when no reply was sent to him he has to file this case claiming Rs.5,66,600/- from the O.Ps, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for his mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/- towards litigation cost incurred by him.  He has also demanded interest on Rs.5,66,600/- @ 12% from 5.1.14 till realisation and for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P No.4 having not contested this case has been set exparte but however O.Ps No.1,2 & 3 have contested this case and have conjointly filed their written version.  As per the written version of O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 the case of the complainant  is not maintainable being barred by law of limitation.  The O.Ps admit about the complainant’s deposit of Rs.77,600/- from 17.6.10 to 5.1.14 through the Collecting Agent(O.P No.4) being identified/appointed by O.P No.1.  But they dispute about the deduction of Rs.5000/- from the account of the complainant. According to the O.Ps, it is the agent whose responsibility is to collect money from the consumer and deposit the same on daily basis and also to provide original money receipt to the consumer thereby submitting the carbon copy thereof to the bank at the end of the week.  The passbook is to be upto dated on furnishing the original money receipts.  The passbook of the complainant was not supported with any single money receipt rather, had carried many manipulations therein without any initials.  According to the O.Ps, the balance of Rs.21,000/- as available in the account of the complainant on 30.3.14 was only after the adjustments towards outstanding cash credit.  Thus there was no shortage of Rs.56.600/- as alleged.  They had removed O.P No.4 from the LBY Agency.  Thus, they have prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

            The O.Ps have filed the statement of daily deposit scheme (LBY) of the complainant which reflects the balance amount to be of Rs.21,000/- as on 30.3.14.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written versions, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.ii.

            This issue being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant has an account in the UCO Bank.  He has also undertaken a scheme of Laghu Bachat Yojna bearing No.04060110075098 from the year 2010 at Narsinghpur Branch.  It is also not in dispute that the O.P No.4 was the agent who was collecting money from the complainant.  The passbook of the complainant appertaining to Narsinghpur Branch reflects the deposits and the balance of Rs.21,000/- as on 30.3.14.  The complainant has suspected the balance amount since because he has deposited a sum of Rs.77,600/- whereas Rs.56,600/- has found out to be a shortfall in his account.  In this regard, it is the contention of the O.Ps that the said amount has been adjusted towards the outstanding cash credit which is well noticed form the copies of the account in that score relating to the complainant as filed by the O.Ps.  Thus, it can be said here that the O.Ps are not found to be deficient in their service as alleged.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the above discussions, the case of the complainant can never be said to be maintainable and thus he is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps, no.1,2 & 3 and exparte against O.P No.4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 26^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

 

                                                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                              Member