Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/46/2016

MR. MINTU DAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SRI JOGEN BORDOLOI

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

 Date of Argument– 27.06.2022(O.P.)                       

                                                                                                                                           Date of Judgment – 16-10-2023.

            This complaint was filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 claiming to direct the opposite parties to operate the S.B. Account No.3481706367 with O.P. No.2 and to pay a compensation of ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand)only along with the cost of the case.

Judgement

            The case of the complainant is that the complainant was maintaining a S.B. Account bearing No.3481706367 since 21.08.2015 with O.P. No.2 and the complainant regularly operated the said A/c and the up-to-date A/c balance of that A/c till filing the case was ₹ 11,689/- (Rupees eleven thousand six hundred eighty nine)only.

            On 26.06.2016 when the complainant went to withdraw ₹ 10,000/- from that A/c, O.P. No.2 suddenly stopped the payment without assigning any reason thereof and when asked by the complainant, O.P. No.2 informed verbally that his said A/c is stopped to operate henceforth. The complainant visited O.P. No.2 several times to know the reason of stopping payment of his A/c but O.P. No.2 without assigning any reason abused the complainant with slang languages and threatened him not to visit the branch in future in this regard. Having no alternative the complainant sent a letter in writing on 12.09.2016 to O.P. No.2 seeking a written reply of reason of stopping payment of his S.B. A/c but O.P. did not reply to his letter.

            The complainant stated that the act and attitude of O.P. No.2 is a total violation of banking rules and regulations as laid down in Banking Act. It is an amount of cheating and criminal breach of trust on the part of O.P. No.2 and it is a case of blazing instance of dereliction of duties, service negligence and unfair banking norms on the part of the opposite parties.

            The complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties :

1. To operate the S.B. Account No. 3481706367 with O.P. No.2.
2. To pay a compensation of ₹ 30,000/- for mental agony, unnecessary harassment and expenditure incurred in visiting O.P. No.2 several times.
3. Cost of the case.

            After registering the case notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties contested the case by filing their W/S jointly.

            The opposite parties claimed that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in law as well as on fact and the complaint filed against the opposite parties is vexatious, false and baseless. It is stoutly denied by the O.P.s that the complainant never approached O.P. No.2 to withdraw any amount from his S.B. Account No.3481706367 and hence the contention of abusing him by O.P. No.2 is false and baseless and has been made to mislead the Ld. Forum. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant on 19.09.2015 approached the opposite party No.2 and filed an application stating inter alia to stop the operation of his S.B. A/c No. 3481706367 and also the service of ATM card issued against the said S.B. A/c as he had come to know that one person named Rajkumar who was known to the complainant and to whom the complainant had entrusted his ATM card along with its secret code had been misutilising the said A/c, some suspicious transactions were done by the said Rajkumar in the A/c of the complainant maintained with O.P. No.2. On the strength of that application filed by the complainant the operation of S.B. A/c No. 3481706367 of the complainant was stopped and the matter was informed to the higher authorities (complainant’s document No.1 is that letter). The status of Account of that S.B. A/c has been annexed with thei W/S is marked as document No.2 of the O.P.

            In reply to complainant’s letter dated 12.09.2016, the opposite parties submitted that the operation of the A/c of the complainant was stopped on his application filed on 19.09.2015. That letter dated 12.09.2016 of the complainant has been made for wrongful gain of the complainant by trying to mislead the O.P. No.2. The complainant never personally visited the bank after 15.09.2015.

            It has also been submitted by the O.P.s that the S.B. A/c was referred to the higher authority of the O.P. for suspicious transactions made therein. On such reference the matter has been placed before the Financial Intelligence Unit of India which makes necessary enquiry/investigation into the matter and thereafter issued necessary instructions to the banks. As the matter was under Financial Intelligence Unit of India the operation of the said S.B. A/c had been stopped. O.P. No.2 took necessary steps as per the application of the complainant dated 19.09.2015 and referred the matter to the Financial Intelligence Unit of India for proper enquiry/investigation and such issues do not fall under deficiency in service. Grievances if needed has to be redressed by the banking ombudsmen being technical banking issue which cannot be properly redressed by this Forum.

            Claiming that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. These O.P.s have prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.

In this complaint the complainant has submitted evidence in affidavit of himself as PW-1. Perused the evidence in affidavit carefully. Seen that evidence is nothing but a mere reiteration of his complaint petition of the complainant. In his evidence the complainant has exhibited the original passbook as exhibit No.1 and exhibit No.2 is the xerox copy of letter dtd. 12.09.2016. Ext. No.3 & 4 are postal receipt and track consignment report of that letter.

            Seen the evidence filed on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 & 2. Perused the same minutely. Seen that it is also nothing but a mere reiteration of their W/S filed in this case. Opposite parties filed a xerox copy of the letter written by the complainant to the O.P. No.2 dtd. 19.09.2015 as their document No.1 along with their evidence in affidavit.

            The complainant in this case after repeated directions has failed to submit his written argument for which the Commission closed written argument of the complainant. The opposite parties filed their written argument on 27.06.2022.

In their written argument the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant on 19.09.2015 approached the bank and placed an application stating that one person known to the complainant, named Shri Rajesh Kumar, to whom the complainant on good faith and trust handed over his ATM card and shared PIN code had been playing fraud and cheated with the complainant by virtue of the ATM and to stop the same the complainant requested O.P. No.2 to stop operation of his Account and block the ATM as well. On receiving that application to safeguard and to protect the complainant’s money, O.P. Bank immediately ordered to stop payment and the Account of the complainant was stopped not for the benefit of the bank but for the safeguard of the complainant and that too on the basis of written application of the complainant. The complainant never stated or denied anywhere that he had never made any application on 19.09.2015.

It is submitted on behalf of opposite parties that the complainant had never filed an application before the opposite party withdrawing his application dated 19.09.2015 so that he could operate the bank A/c as usual prior to 19.09.2015. O.P.s claimed that the complainant had some hidden agenda for which this false case was filed against the O.P.s and the complaint should be dismissed.

Now points for decision

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has got jurisdiction to try the case.
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable for deficient/negligent services and unfair trade practices.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs claimed by him in his complaint petition.

Points decided

1. The fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party has not been challenged by the O.P. and from perusal of document submitted, this Commission holds that the complainant is a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.
2. This Commission has proper territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
3. To decide the liability of the opposite parties we have gone through the complaint petition, evidence in affidavit and the documents exhibited by the complainant, we have seen that as a depositor the complainant became a consumer of the O.P. This fact is established by Ext. No.1 of the complainant which is the original SB Account passbook in the name of the complainant bearing Account No.3481706367 and this fact is specifically admitted by the O.P. in their W/S and evidence as well. As regards the letter written by the complainant to the Branch Manager of the O.P. bank, it is observed that this document is only a xerox copy of the letter dated 12.09.2016. On minute scrutiny of the postal receipt concerning Ext.No.2 exhibited as Ext. No.3, it is seen that in was registered as No.RS451682905IN and was addressed to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, P.O. C.R. Building, Dibrugarh and booked on 12.09.2016 but the track consignment report exhibited as Ext. No.4 has revealed the event details for RS451672324IN and not RS451682905IN. Under the circumstance it has become difficult for us to believe the complainant’s claim that he wrote the letter dated 12.09.2016 requesting the O.P. bank to allow him to operate his bank Account. Moreover, xerox copies unless treated as secondary evidence under the provision of Indian Evidence Act cannot be regarded as evidence. It is worth-mentioning that for deciding the complaint, Consumer Commission must rely on the documentary evidence only. We have found no required evidence to hold that the opposite parties are liable for deficient and negligent services towards the complainant.

                         At the same time we have perused the W/S, evidence in affidavit, documents and written argument filed by the O.P. also. Seen that the O.Ps. admitted the fact that the complainant was a consumer under them. Denying their liability of deficient/negligent services and unfair trade practices the O.Ps. have submitted that they stopped the operation of the SB Account of the complainant upon a petition filed by the complainant on 19.09.2015 requesting them to stop operation of his SB Account and to block the ATM concerning the SB Account. The opposite parties like the complainant have filed only a xerox copy of the letter written by the complainant to the O.P. bank marking as document No.1. They have also failed to produce the original letter as exhibited along with their evidence in affidavit.

                        From all above discussions we have found no evidence to book the opposite party in the iota of negligent and deficient services as well as for unfair trade practices as claimed by the complainant in his complaint petition towards its consumer, namely the complainant in this case under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                        Finally this Commission decides that the complaint filed by the complainant to get the reliefs claimed by him under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable and hence dismissed.

                                    The instant C.C. No.46/2016 is accordingly disposed of on contest without cost.