Date of Filing: 25.09.2014 Date of Final Order: 30.04.2015
The gist of the case as can be gathered from the record is that the above complainant, Parimal Ch. Datta opened a Savings Bank Account with the O.P., H.D.F.C. Bank by depositing initial amount of Rs.10,000/- only in the joint names of his wife, Smt. Swagata Datta and the O.P bank has allotted the number of the said Savings Account being No.08491530006468. After opening of the said account the complainant used to deposit and withdraw money from time to time against the said savings account.
On 16/11/2012 at about 11 A.M the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.55,000/- by cash in the O.P bank against his savings account No.08491530006468 for which the said bank has granted counter part of the Deposit Slip acknowledging receipt of the said sum of Rs.55,000/-. Thereafter, on same day at about 3 P.M the complainant deposited further a sum of Rs.55,000/- in the said account and the bank has granted counter part of the Deposit Slip acknowledging receipt of the said amount. Thus the O.P bank has granted two counter parts for above two deposits.
It is the case of the complainant that from the statement of account issued by the O.P bank for the period 01/10/2012 to 02/04/2013 and for the period 23/08/2012 to 31/12/2013 it was noticed by the complainant that out of above two deposits only one deposit of Rs.55,000/- was credited in the savings account of the complainant. Seeing the above omission of not giving credit of another deposit of Rs.55,000/- the complainant rushed to the Branch Manager of the O.P bank and brought the above fact of omission to his notice. The said Branch Manager assured the complainant that the matter would be solved in due course after obtaining confirmation from their Madras office. After that the complainant repeatedly went to the said Branch Manager and requested him to regularise the above infirmity by giving credit of Rs.55,000/- to the account of the complainant. But the said Branch Manager assured that the credit of said amount of Rs.55,000/- would be given, which would take considerable time. Seeing inaction on the part of the O.P bank, the complainant ultimately by writing a letter dated 13/06/2014 requested the O.P., Branch Manager to give credit of said amount of Rs.55,000/-. After receiving the complainant’s above letter dated 13/06/2014 the bank authority remained silent even they did not care to make any reply. Then the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Secretary, Banking Ombudsman by writing a letter dated 23/06/2014, whereupon the said O.P bank made a reply dated 28/07/2014 and informed the complainant that the voucher of the transaction in question could not be traced in their office as such they did not give the credit of the same. Due to the deficiency of service of the above O.P and also due to such unfair trade practice of said O.P., the complainant has been suffering much both financially and mentally.
Finding no other alternative way, the complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P (i) Rs.55,000/- for principal deposit amount, (ii) Rs.15,000/- for financial loss suffered, (iii) Rs.30,000/- for mental suffering, (iv) Rs.6,000/- towards litigation cost, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P., H.D.F.C. Bank has contested the case by filing W/V denying all material allegation of the complaint.
It is the specific case of the O.P that the complainant made false allegation against the answering O.P in order to make wrongful gain out of it. The complainant has himself stated about the deposition of the sum of Rs.55,000/- on 16/11/2012 but he was silent for almost 19 months and he came up with this frivolous story now in the year 2014. This conduct of this complainant itself proves that the malafide motive of the complainant. Again the complainant received the account statement first on 02/04/2013 but he did not raise any objection at that time rather he chose to allege his grievance only after receipt of the second statement on 31/12/2013 i.e. after expiry of 1½ months from the date of receipt of the second statement.
It is the further case of the O.P, it is found that the first counter part of the deposit slip bears the signatures of the complainant whereas the second deposit slip, as annexed by the complainant, is devoid of any such signature which raises reasonable suspicion about the genunity of the claim of the complainant. Further the answering O.P states that in all other deposit slips that has been used by the complainant himself, copies of some of the deposit slips is annexed herewith and marked as ‘Annexure-A’ which shows that whenever any deposit is being made by the complainant he has endorsed his signatures on the deposit slip but the second deposit slip as annexed in ‘Annexure-I’ of the complaint petition shows that there is no signature of the complainant which goes on to prove that the complainant has not deposited any such sum with the bank.
It is the further case of the O.P that after receiving the complaint from the complainant the branch thoroughly checked the entire set of vouchers, journal report and cash shortage/excess report of the said date but the branch did not find any voucher, any entry or excess cash report which can prove that the complainant has deposited the sum of Rs.55,000/- on the second occasion on 16/11/2012.
Ultimately, O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief(s) with compensation?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument at a length by the parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently the complainant has a Savings Bank Account in the Cooch Behar branch of the O.P H.D.F.C bank and he is depositing and withdrawing money from there. So the complainant is a consumer under the O.P.
Point No.2.
The O.P H.D.F.C bank has branch office at Cooch Behar within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the total valuation of this case is Rs.1,06,000/- which is far below than maximum pecuniary limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
It is the case of the complainant that on 16/11/2012 at about 11 A.M the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.55,000/- by cash in the O.P bank against his savings account No.08491530006468 for which the said bank has granted counter part of the Deposit Slip acknowledging receipt of the said sum of Rs.55,000/-. Thereafter, on same day at about 3 P.M the complainant deposited further a sum of Rs.55,000/- in the said account and the bank has granted counter part of the Deposit Slip acknowledging receipt of the said amount. Thus the O.P bank has granted two counter parts for above two deposits.
‘Annexure-1’ i.e. two original/Xerox copy of the money receipt dated 16/11/2012 show that on 16/11/2012 the complainant deposited Rs.55,000/- each in two times i.e. totaling Rs.1,10,000/-.
It is the further case of the complainant that from the statement of account issued by the O.P bank for the period 01/10/2012 to 02/04/2013 and for the period 23/08/2012 to 31/12/2013 it was noticed by the complainant that out of above two deposits only one deposit of Rs.55,000/- was credited in the savings account of the complainant. Seeing the above omission of not giving credit of another deposit of Rs.55,000/- the complainant rushed to the Branch Manager of the O.P bank and brought the above fact of omission to his notice.
‘Annexure-2 & 3’ i.e. copy of the bank statement show that Rs.55,000/- has been deposited on 16/11/2012 in the account of the complainant. But second deposit of Rs.55,000/- does not find place there.
‘Annexure-4’ is the letter dated 13/06/2014 by which the complainant informed the O.P bank about the matter of non-credit of second deposit on 16/11/2012.
‘Annexure-5’ is the complaint regarding same matter to the Secretary, office of the Banking Ombudsman, Kolkata.
‘Annexure-6’ is the reply of complaint, submitted by the complainant.
‘Annexure-7’ is the letter dated 03/08/2014 issued by office of the Banking Ombudsman, Kolkata to the complainant by which he was informed that his complaint was rejected and he was advised to take shelter of other authority under the law for Redressal of grievance.
It is the case of the O.P that this is a false case and the complainant did not deposit Rs.55,000/- on 16/11/2012 in same bank in second time and when the cash was to be deposited in same account on the same day and the same time there the reason of using two deposit slip must be known best to the complainant.
It is also the case of the O.P that it is found that counter part of deposit slip of first deposit bears signature of the complainant but second slip does not bear his signature, which raises strong suspicion about the genunity of the claim of the complainant.
In support of their contention the O.P also files Xerox copy of some other deposition slips of the complainant which also bear his signature.
But we think only on the ground that same amount was deposited in the same account on the same day and the complainant did not put his signature in his own counterpart, it cannot be said that it would raised strong presumption of suspicion that the claim of the complainant is false.
Evidently disputed deposit was made on 16/11/2012 but the complainant informed the matter to the bank on 13/06/2014.
We further find that it is the allegation of the complainant that his second deposit of Rs.55,000/- on 16/11/2012 was not credited in his account but he detected the same at late stage, as before January, 2014 there was no provision of issuance of Pass Book by the O.P bank. Copy of the Pass Book of the complainant certainly shows that in the said Pass Book first entry was made on 09/01/2014. So, we find some truth in the contention of the complainant.
During hearing argument Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P submitted that admittedly the complainant is a business man and Income Tax payee. So, he should have produced his statement of account to show such disputed transaction.
But we think, this Forum cannot compel the complainant to produce such statement of the account.
On careful perusal of the disputed original receipt, we find that by said receipt the complainant deposited Rs.55,000/- on 16/11/2012 to the O.P H.D.F.C bank and one employee of the said bank issued receipt by putting Rubber Stamp of the bank and by writing Rs.55,000/- with his signature.
The O.P in so many words did not claim that said receipt is forged document and also did not take any criminal action against the complainant.
It is also the case of the O.P that their branch thoroughly checked the entire sets of Vouchers, Journal Report and cash shortage/excess report of the said date but did not find any excess cash. But no such document is forth coming before the Forum.
Rather by letter dated 28/07/2014 the O.P bank informed the complainant that voucher of the transaction in question could not be trace out in their office.
Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record we are unable to understand how of the O.P can deny the document issued by their own employee by putting Rubber Stamp and signature and if there was any wrong, the bank authority was liable for that wrong.
Accordingly, we constrained to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P by not depositing Rs.55,000/- deposited by the complainant on 16/11/2012 at 3.00 P.M.
So, point No.3 & 4 are decided in favour of the complainant.
Thus, the case succeeds.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The DF Case No.66/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The O.P H.D.F.C. Bank is hereby directed to pay Rs.55,000/- as principal deposit amount and Rs.20,000/- as financial loss and mental sufferings.
The ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant directly by the Opposite party within 45 days failure of which the Opposite Party shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be sent to each of the parties free of cost by registered post with A/D forthwith as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
