Smt. Sangita Paul, Member

This is a case was filed by the Secretary, Nabadiganta Service Co-operative Society Ltd., the address of which is Tentulberia (West), Garia, P.S. – Narendrapur, Kolkata-700 084 against Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) and the Sr. Manager Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to release the fixed deposits, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only for mental agony and harassment, and to pay litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.

OP No.1 is Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Tentulberia Branch.  The address is Tentulberia Road, P.O. – Garia, P.S. – Narendrapur, Kolkata-700 084.

OP No.2 is the Sr. Manager, Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank). The address is same as the address of OP No.1.

The complainant, being a corporate body, states that during the course of their normal work, they have appointed 410 Customer Service
Providers who perform their job in rural areas of different districts of West Bengal.  The CSPs were required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- per head as security deposit against overdraft limit of Rs.10,000/- per head, allowed by Indian Bank.

The remaining amount of Rs.21,10,000/- (Rs.41,00,000/- - Rs.19,90,000/-) i.e. twenty one lakh ten thousand only for 211 CSPs was returned by Nabadiganta Service Co-operative Society Ltd. from Society’s Saving Bank Account for settlement with them.

Rs.21,10,000/- is in the custody of the bank in the form of FDs and in the name of the society.  This total amount lies in the form of 14 Fixed Deposit Certificates.

In addition to the report of the qualified auditor and as per report of the Eastern Zonal Head of M/S Ayanti Technologies Pvt. Ltd. That the bank must release the said fund of FD Certificates for Nabadiganta Service Co-operative Society Ltd., but the bank did not release the same.

The bank is negligent in releasing the said amount.  They are creating issues day by day.  It is the most unfortunate and detrimental to the complainant.  The complainant demanded to keep the deposits in the bank in the form of term deposits.  The bank is not willing to do so.  The bank informed to contact with the higher authority.  As the bank is not giving fund to society, the society had to borrow from outside to meet the demand.

That the cause of action arose on 02.12.2020 and 02.09.2022 when the bank authority received the notice dated 02.09.2022.  That the cause of action is still continuing.

Hence the complainant (a corporate body) prays for directing the OPs to release the fixed deposits, deposited in the bank, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, to pay litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- only.

OPs, in the written version stated that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. 

The complainant is not a consumer in respect of the OP Bank.  The complainant is a registered co-operative society engaged in commercial transaction.  A co-operative society has its own legal identity.  As such, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  The complainant has raised some contentions against M/S. Ayanti Technologies Pvt. Ltd. But did not make the Co-operative a party to the instant complaint.

The instant consumer complaint is barred by the law of limitation.  The disputed transactions were made in the year 2015 and the complaint was made in the year 2022.  As per C. P. Act, the limitation period is 2-years from the date of cause of action.

The complainant did not come before the bank with clean hands.  The complainants have no cause of action for filing the present complaint.

The OPs denied all the allegations leveled against them.  OPs stated that the complainant is not a consumer.  The OP is engaged in commercial transaction, so he is not a consumer.  Ayanti Technologies is engaged by bank.  It is responsible for conducting business correspondence.

OPs submitted that Rs.29.66 lacs were issued by the Allahabad Bank in the name of the complainant.  Due to non-fulfillment of the requisite formalities, the OP Bank with drew the OD limit, the security deposit of Rs.19,90,000/- was refunded to the complainant.  OPs state that unless the required formalities are fulfilled, the OP Bank is unable to release the balance amount.  The complainant has kept the said fund for running their business.  So the complainants are not consumers.  So there is no negligence on the part of the OP Bank.  OPs state that they are not negligent.

The cause of action pleaded in the complaint is absolutely false.  The OD facility was withdrawn on 23.09.2015 and refund was made on 24.09.2015.  So the cause of action arose on 24.09.2015.  Mere issuance of notice cannot extend the statutory limit.

It is denied that the complainants are entitled to any relief.

The OPs state that the present complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.

That the case was filed on 17.10.2022.  The case was admitted on 03.11.2022.  On 01.12.2022, OPs 1 and 2 appeared and prayed for time for filing W/V.  On 09.11.2023 OPs 1 and 2 filed W/V.  Copy served.  The OP has also filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case.  Copy served.  Objection is also raised by the complainant.  On 08.02.2023, the complainant files evidence on affidavit.  Copy served.  On 08.02.2023, the petition dated 09.01.2023 filed by the OP on maintainability ground is taken up for hearing, Ld. Advocate for the complainant filed W/O against the petition dated 09.01.2023.  Heard the submission of Ld. Lawyers of both sides, in full on the ground of maintainability.  On 09.02.2023, the case record was put up for order.  In the petition dated 09.01.2023, filed by the OPs it was contended that the complainant being a co-operative society was a corporate body, having its own legal identity and is engaged in commercial transaction.  The body corporate cannot be termed as a consumer U/S 2(7) of the C P Act, 2019.  Moreover, the case was filed in 2015 and the complaint has been filed in 2022, after the expiry of 7-years.  The OPs contended that the case be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. 

The complainant filed the written objection on 08.02.2013 contending that the complainant is not at all engaged in the business of commercial transaction nor the instant petition be barred by law of limitation.  The complainant prayed for rejection of the said petition, dated 09.01.2023 with cost.

It appears that the application dated 09.01.2023 as filed by the OP hits the very root of this case and mixed question of law and fact is involved therein.  As such, it is just an expedient to dispose of the instant application dated 09.01.2023.  As such the application filed by the OP is kept in abeyance for the present for disposal of the same along with the main complaint case.  On 04.04.2023, the OPs file questionnaire.  Copy served.  On 16.05.2023, the complainant files reply.

On 09.06.2023, the OPs were absent on call.  No step is taken by the OPs.  OPs did not file evidence on affidavit.  On 17.07.2023, both the parties filed BNA.  BNA was exchanged.  Heard argument of both the parties in full along with the petition dated 09.01.2023 by the OPs regarding maintainability of the case.

Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement.                                     

                        Points for consideration :-

1.  Is the complainant, a consumer?
2. Is the petition of complaint maintainable?
3.  Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

Point No.1:-  On perusal of documents and paper on record, it appears that the complainant is a corporate body.  The OPs raised vehement objection that the complainant cannot be a consumer.  Because it is a corporate body and it is engaged in commercial transaction. It appears that as per Section 2(
5) of the C P Act, 2019, complainant means, one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest.  The complainant, i.e. Nabadiganta Co-operative Society Ltd. is such body with which several consumers are associated.  So it appears that the complainant, being a corporate body, is consumer U/S 2(7) of the C P Act., 2019.

Point No.2:-  That the above mentioned complaint is very much maintainable by the District Commission.  The complainants are numerous having the same interest. Nabadiganta Service Co-operative Society Limited appointed 410 Customer Service Providers.  The Customer Service Providers (CSPs) deposited Rs.10,000/- per head, at the Indian Bank against the overdraft limit of Rs.10,000/- per head.  It appears that the CSPs have transactions with the bank as and when required.  So the corporate body can be termed as a consumer, and as such this complaint is well maintainable before the Commission.

Point No.3:-  The complainant has appointed 410 Customer Service Providers (CSPs).  They perform their job in rural districts of West Bengal.  The CSPs are required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- per head as security deposit.  The CSPs are entitled to get the overdraft limit of Rs.10,000/- per head.  Rs.21,10,000/- was returned by Nabadiganta Service Co-operative Society Ltd. From the Society’s Saving Bank Account, for settlement with lien.  Society was engaged with transactions with Ayanti.  They requested to release the FD /RIP.  The amount of security Deposit was settled with Bank mitra by Nabadiganta Service Co-operative Society Limited.  The Manager of Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) was requested to release FD / RIP so that the Nabadiganta Co-operative Society Ltd could deploy the fund.  The Society is in great shortage of fund and stopped functioning due to paucity of fund.  The Co-operative Society hoped that an action would be initiated by the bank for proper running of the business.  The total amount of Rs.21,10,000/- is lying with Bank in the form of FDs.  The bank must release the said fund for Nabadiganta Service Co-operative Society Ltd.  It seems to be quite unnatural that the bank is not releasing the said fund.  It  is due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service adopted by the OPs that they are not releasing the fund.  Hence, the 2^nd point is settled in favour of the complainants and against the OPs.

Point No.4:-  It appears that Rs.24,57,482/- including interest accrued has been lying with Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Tentulberia base Branch.  The complainant appears for releasing the said fund, with interest.  The complainant prayed for refund of the said amount of Rs.24,57,482/- but with no result.  The OPs are not releasing the fund.  It appears that the OPs are deficient in providing proper service so that the complainant can get redressal.  As a result, the complainant spends time in mental agony.    Hence, the third point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

Fees paid is correct.

 Hence, it is,

ORDERED

That the complainant be and the same allowed with contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand).

That the OPs jointly and / or severally are directed to refund the amount of Rs.24,57,482/-(Rupees twenty four lakhs fifty seven thousand four hundred and eighty two) with 9% interest to the complainant w.e.f. 02.12.2020 till realization within 30 days from the date of this order.

The OPs jointly and / or severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) within the stipulated period of 30 days.

The cost of litigation is to be paid by the OPs Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousands) is to be paid by the OPs jointly and / or severally within 30 days from the date of this order.

The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within 30 days from the date of this order.

Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.

That the final order will be available in the following website viz. www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.

         (Sangita Paul)

             Member