MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-
Complainant has filed the C.C.Case U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking following relief, Honbl’e Commission after hearing from both parties, to the parties may kindly be directed to operate the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant & further be directed to the Ops also to pay Rs. 90,000/- in total i.e., Rs. 40,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony of the Complainant.
Brief fats of Complainant is that the Complainant is a works contractor & doing his other business to earn livelihood to maintain himself as well as family. In order to make transaction of money Complainant was need a Bank Account in his name of OP. Party which is a Nationalized Bank for it’s best service facilities such as Withdrawal, deposit and money transfer through ATM cheque facilities and also online transfer and payment etc. to its account holder as a consumer by taking service charges for the same for that the Complainant has opened mentioned saving account in the Bank of Ops to get better service.
The Op-Bank without any reason or any prior notice to the Complainant has hold the above mentioned account of the Complainant arbitrarily, as a result of which the Complainant is facing a lot of trouble in his day to day life without transaction of depositing, withdrawing and payment of money as per his necessity by which the earning of livelihood of the Complainant is seriously affected. Complainant approached the field Officer/Chief Manager several times to operate his Bank Account without any delay as his livelihood for maintaining himself and his family. After many time of request when no step was taken by the Bank for operating the account of the Complainant and the Complainant being hopeless was constrained to sent a notice to the Branch Manager of the Bank through Adv. on dt. 13.10.2022 to take necessary steps regarding operate the account of the Complainant within 15 days receiving of the said notice. But Op-Bank has not replied. Hence cause of action for the Complainant to insisting this proceeding for getting redressal.
OP. Party has filed their written version stating that the real facts of the case of the present Opposite Party is that the Complainant maintained one savings Bank Account bearing No. 31487814346 with the present Op-Bank. As per the Saving Bank Rule & Regulation, if there is no transaction by an account holder in his account for continuously for 24 months, the account automatically gets classified as dormant/inoperative account. Where upon further mandate for credit transaction are not permitted usually in ordinary course and on request for activation of the account has to be made by the account holder and the Bank in its discretion shall allow the operation of the account. In the present account of the Complainant, there was no transaction for more than 24 months before 18.11.2022 and the computer system automatically classify the account as Dormant/inoperative account.
Further the Complainant on 18.11.2022 requested the Bank to made the account operative thereby he was allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs. 100/- by way of cheque presenting the same in the Bank which was duly entered in the Bank register on dt. 18.11.2022 which is maintained to make the account operational. The Complainant is fully aware of the facts that the account was became inoperative and for which he was not allowed to withdraw by the computer system as per Saving Account Rules. Thus, the Bank has not committed deficiency in providing service to the Complainant.
We have perused the records of both parties, it is not disputed by the Complainant that Complainant was in default in operating his own S/B Account No. 31487814346 for years together for which as per statuary Rules the accounts automatically gets classified as dormant/inoperative account, where further mandate for credit transaction was not permitted and upon the request of Complainant on 18.11.2022 to made the Account operative the account has been made operative and Complainant was allowed to withdraw Rs. 100/- as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops & the Complainant has already operated the Account dt. 18.11.2022 after filing the C.C. Case on 07.11.2022 as such there is no deficiency on the part of Opp.party rather Complainant cunningly filed C.C.Case on 07.11.22 before this Commission & on the next week requested Bank and operated his account on 18.11.22 as such we find no merit in the C.C.Case and accordingly C.C.Case No. 65/2022 is dismissed. No cost.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June, 2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
