In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/128/2021.
Date of filing: 30/09/2021. Date of Final Order: 16/08/2023.
Smt. Jayanti Saha Banerjee,
W/O Sri Barun Banerjee,
Of Vill. Gajaghanta,
P.O. & P.S. Mogra,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712148. …….complainant
vs -
- Dipankar Banerjee,
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Tribeni Branch, P.O. Tribeni,
P.S. Mogra, Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712503.
- State Bank of India,
Tribeni Branch, P.O. Tribeni,
P.S. Mogra, Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712503.……opposite parties
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant is an account holder having savings account in OP bank vide savings account no.20008703915 which was opened on 21.6.2011 and the same is the only bank account of the complainant in op bank. Due to some financial stringencies since opening of the said account the complainant was unable to operate the same regularly which could be revealed from the passbook itself and as she failed to collect the bar code on her passbook and as a result she couldn’t update her bank passbook for a long time and the complainant during her lifetime made a policy of LICI and the maturity value of the said policy was entered in the said bank account of the complainant in the op bank. After getting the bar code on her passbook complainant updated the same in the month of December 2020 and was astonished to see that a sum of Rs.124518/- has been deducted from her said savings account and on verification of the said account complainant was surprised to note the said amount has been deducted in lieu of “Loan closure by TRF 030096633802 of Mrs. Jayanti Saha Banerjee” which is absolutely illegal and absolutely imaginary. Seeing such reason of deduction, the complainant being completely wrote a letter to the OP bank on 05.01.2021 and in reply to that a bank statement was sent showing why and how Rs.124518/- has been deducted and to her utter dismay complainant found that there was a loan of Rs. 22000/- against a KVP/IVP which is also a manufactured ground. The complainant to her utter surprise further note that although complainant opened this account with the op bank in the year 2011 but the alleged KVP loan was given by the op bank in the year 2006 and the bank authority illegally and arbitrarily incorporated the said account with this account and from such conduct of the bank authority it is established that “The op bank is nothing but a renowned astrologer who on the prediction that a savings account would be opened by the complainant after 5 years of alleged sanction of loan and on such prediction they allegedly sanctioned the KVP loan in favour of the alleged complainant in the year 2006”And as such the complainant immediately asked the manager of the op bank to produce and return the alleged KVP on which ground the amount has been deducted but the bank authority failed to produce any such KVP to the complainant which only suggest that the op bank misappropriated the said amount and now trying to rectify their wrong by adjusting the bonafide amount of the complainant which is nothing but a fraud practice with the complainant and a clear example of Illegal Trade practice” on the part of the op bank. The complainant had no KVP so taking loan against any KVP does not arise at all. It is very astonishing that neither the op bank sent any letter nor make any demand prior to such illegal deduction if the ob bank has any such account with any outstanding amount lying against the complainant then it might have been informed to the complainant but the op bank surreptitiously deducted the amount which only suggest illegal trade practice on his part. The deduction of Rs. 124518/- showing a loan against KVP is nothing but an example of unfair and fraudulent trade practice on the part of the op bank and in consequence the complainant has been suffering from mental and bodily pain and anxiety and her health has been deteriorating day by day. Such conduct on the art of the op bank transpires deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and for such reason the complainant has been suffering mental agony, anxiety and harassment having no fault on her part and for such reason the complainant is required to be compensated by the op bank for causing such unnecessary harassment. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice dated on 09.03.2021 through his ld. Advocate and inspite of receiving the same the op bank did not turn up and as such the complainant has been compelled to file this complaint for redress.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 124518/- to refund the deducted amount and to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- for compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- for litigation cost for causing severe mental pain, agony, anxiety and harassment and to pay interest @ 18% p.a.
Defense Case:- The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the op bank is computerized bank with the system generated function and this false, illegitimate claim manufactured in a mala fide manner is not payable as deficiency of service does not arise at all as alleged by the claimant and this op no. 1 adhering to the laws of the land rightly repudiated such a claim of the complainant. So the instant case should be rejected with costs.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the issues /points of consideration adopted in this case are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly as the questions involved in the issue /points of consideration are interlinked /interconnected with one another.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted the issues /points of consideration this district commission after going through the material of this case record and evidence as well as documents filed by both sides finds that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 22000/- from OP bank against K.V.P /V.P in the year 2006 but this fact has totally been suppressed by the complainant side. It indicates that the complainant has not come forward before this district commission in clean hand and so she is not entitled to get any equitable relief from this establishment. Moreover the evidence of record goes to show that during pendency of this case as per request of the complainant the OP bank authority has already disbursed the claim amount of this case in the account of the complainant and as such no further interest is payable by the op bank. This matter is clearly depicting that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank authority.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the claim of the complainant side is not maintainable and the case which has been filed by complainant is against the law of equity and there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank authority.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 128 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest .
No order is passed as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
