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

                                                CASE No.  CC/80/2020

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

    17.08.2020                               16.09.2020                                18.04.2023      

Complainant:  Sri Swapan Raychowdhury,

                        S/o – Niranjan Raychowdhury,

                        Of 26, Sriram Saromoni Road,

                        Golden Heights, Flat No. E/2 Kadai,

                        P.O. + P.S.- Berhampore,

                        Dist- Murshidabad,  Pin-742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. Chief Manager,

                               United Bank of India,

                               Berhampore Branch,

                               1 & 2 Dr. S.N. Bhattacharjee Road,

                               (Near Jaltank, Berhampore Municipality).

                               P.O. & P.S– Berhampore,

                               Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742102, W.B.

    2. Regional Manager,

                                United Bank of India,

                                11 Hemanta Basu Sarani,

                                   Kolkata-700 001

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        :   Aditya Nath Upadhyay

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                     :    Subhash Saha

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

                            Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.

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

One Sri Swapan Raychowdhury (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Berhampore Branch  and Anr. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

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

The Complainant is a pensioner and that is his only earning source. The Complainant had deposited his retired benefit money with the O.P. No. 1 under fixed deposit scheme on 25.02.2012 amount to Rs. 1,15,518.86 for 12 months @ interest of Rs. 9.25 % P.A. under re-investment plan vide Term Deposit. Receipt No. TDR/MSP 0253301 bearing Account No. 0229104097253 and the said amount under auto renewal process comes at matured value of Rs. 2,11,567.74 dated 25.02.2020.

Further the Complainant had invested with the O.P. No. 1 under fixed deposit scheme on 25.02.2016 an amount to Rs. 1,63,310.96 for 12 months @ interest of Rs. 7.00 % p.a. under re-investment plan RPGEN vide cumulative term deposit receipt No. MTL/A297688 bearing account No. 0229104097253 and said amount under auto renewal process comes at matured value of Rs. 2,11,567.74 dated 25.02.2020. In spite of proper investment the O.P.s had denied to pay the matured amount. Several times this Complainant had met and approached the O.P.s but failed. The Complainant had also made complaints with the O.P.s but every time was denied.

Thereafter, the Complainant had approached the O.P.s many times but all his efforts in vain.

Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission praying for an order directing the O.P.s to pay the Complainant    Rs. 4,23,135.48/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment, physical injury and mental agony totaling Rs. 6,23,135.48/-. 

Defence Case

The O.P. is contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case of the O.P.s is that the Complainant Sri Swapan Raychowdhury, created one Term Deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupess One Lakhs only) in the year 2010, vide Account No. 0229104097253 (Berhampore Branch – 0229, erstwhile United Bank of India now Punjab National Bank) the above mentioned term deposit was auto renewal (unlimited) facility as per system recorded in O.P.s Bank’s record.

The statement of the term deposit account is attached and is a matter of record.

The term deposit was matured on 25.02.2011 amounting to Rs. 1,05,940.45 and the same was closed on 25.02.2011 and the same amount of Rs. 1,05,940.45 in the same Account No. 0229104097253 in the same day on 25.02.2011 the depositor/customer/complainant of the instant case has created the term deposit with auto renewal (unlimited).

Note: As the Term Deposit scheme was auto renewal (unlimited), there is no need for any instruction/advice for renewal of the term deposit from depositor/customer/complainant in the instant case.

Note: But the depositor/customer/complainant in the instant case has come to the branch in the above mentioned term deposit matured on 25.02.2012 and instruction/advice the branch for renewal of the term deposit and received the below mentioned term deposit receipt.

That the said amount was again matured on 25.02.2012 amounting to Rs. 1,15,518.86 and thereafter the same amount of Rs. 1,15,518,86 in same Account No. 0229104097253 in the same day on 25.02.2012 the depositor/customer/complainant of the instant case has again created the term deposit for one year with auto renewal (unlimited) facility, (Vide Term Deposit Receipt No. TDR/MSP 0253301, Reinvestment Plan, Account No. 0229104097253, date: 25.02.2012).

That the term deposit vide Account No. 0229104097253 auto renewal (unlimited) facility in every year by this system the term deposit is matured on 25.02.2016 amounting to Rs. 1,63,310.96 and thereafter the same amount of Rs. Rs. 1,63,310.96 in same Account No. 0229104097253 in the same day on 25.02.2016 the depositor/customer/complainant of the instant case has again created the term deposit for one year with auto renewal (unlimited) facility, (Vide Cumulative Term Deposit Receipt No. MTL/A 297688, Reinvestment Plan, Account No. 0229104097253, date 25.02.2016) and finally it comes at matured on 25.02.2020 amounting to Rs. 2,11,567.74.

On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

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

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

 The Complainant is present. He personally submits before this District Commission that he is a Consumer to the O.P. Bank. Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s Bank did not raise any objection on this point. Such being the position we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the O.P.s Bank.

The point no. 1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point no.2 & 3

Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.  

 As per complaint, the Complainant prays for passing an order directing the O.P. Bank to pay Rs. 4,23,135.48/- + Rs. 2,00,000/- towards harassment, physical injury and mental agony.

The Complainant is present. On being asked by this District Commission the Complainant submits that the draft of the complaint was prepared by his Ld. Advocate and his Ld. Advocate failed to disclose the fact properly.

He submits that the O.P.s Bank issued the receipt of term deposit (TDR/MS/253300) to him having account no. 0229104097253 amounting to Rs. 1,15,578.86/- and thereafter he received the matured amount on 28.02.2022. He has no dispute regarding the term deposit receipt no. TDR/MSP 0253301.

He further submits that the O.P.s Bank issued the receipt of term deposit (MTL/A 297688) to him having account no. 0229104097253 amounting to Rs. 1,63,310.96/-. But the O.P.s Bank has refused to return the matured amount in connection with the said term deposit.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s Bank submits that the Complainant, Sri Swapan Raychowdhury, created one term deposit of Rs. 1,00000/- (one lakh only) in the year 2010 vide Account No. 0229104097253 (Berhampore Branch- 0229, erstwhile United Bank of India now Punjab National Bank). The above mentioned term deposit was auto renewal facility as per system recorded in their bank’s record.

The aforesaid term deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- became Rs. 1,15,518.86/- on 25.02.2012 and accordingly the O.P.s Bank issued the term deposit certificate vide Receipt No. TDR/MSP 0253301 dated 25.02.2012 amounting to Rs. 1,15,518.86/-.

The aforesaid term deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- became Rs. 1,63,310.96/- on 25.02.2016 and accordingly the O.P.s bank issued the term deposit certificate vide Receipt No. MTL/A 297688 dated 25.02.2016 amounting to Rs. 1,63,310.96/-.

The abovementioned both the term deposit receipts of Rs. 1,15,518.86/- and Rs. 1,63,310.96/- were issued from the same account bearing A/C no. 0229104097253.

It is admitted by the Complainant himself that the O.P.s Bank had given the matured value of the receipt no.  TDR/MSP 0253301 on 28.02.2022 in his account bearing A/C No. 0229010277011 and he has submitted the photocopy of the relevant page of his A/C No in support of his contention.

In this respect the letter of Bank Manager, UBI Berhampore Branch addressed to the Complainant Mr. Swapan Raychowdhury may be quoted here:

 “ Dear Sir,

Regarding the receipt of term deposit issued to you by us having the same account number 0229104097253 (The receipts are MTL/A/297688 issued in 2016 and TDR/MS/253300 issued in 2012), we are to inform you that both the receipts belong to the same account number (0229104097253) and thus cannot be renewed twice as desired by you.

We would like to add that the certificate issued later (MTL/A/297688) is of no material value in the presence of the actual receipt issued to you in 2012 (TDR/MS/253300). We suggest you to return the last receipt to the bank authorities and get the ambiguity cleared.

With regards”

In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that  both the term deposit receipt numbers were issued from the same account bearing a/c no. 0229104097253 and they were issued on 25.02.2012 and 25.02.2016 and it is admitted position that the Complainant received the matured amount in respect of the term deposit receipt nos TDR/MSP 0253301 and as such the certificate issued later (MTL/A 297688) is of no material value.

Further it is mentioned that the submissions made by the Complainant himself does not tally with the fact mentioned in the complaint.

In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 17.08.2020 and admitted on 16.09.2020. 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 fails.

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/80/2020 be and the same is dismissed against O.P.s on contest but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

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.

President

 Member                                                                                                         President.