The Complainant has filed the case against the O.Ps under section 14 of Consumer Protection Act. and praying for the following order/relief:

1. Direction against the O.P. No. 2 to pay a maturity value of two (02) policies of Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand) only along with interest @18% annum.
2. Direction against the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the Complainant as compensation for unnecessary harassment.
3.       Direction against the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only to the Complainant as litigation cost.

 BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. That, the Complainant has stated that O.P. No. 1 is a Bank/ Financial Institution and O.P. No. 2 is Branch Manager of O.P. No. 1 and Complainant is a bonafide consumer of the O.Ps
2. That, the Complainant had been maintaining daily recurring scheme being A/C No. 488252 and another account being No. 121000546850 which are maintained with the O.Ps since 2014.
3. After opening the said account the Complainant had started to deposit the said daily deposit under the daily deposit scheme on and from the month of July 2014 for the period of 12 months.
4. That, one authorized agent of O.P.s namely Prabir Saha used to collect money from the Complainant @Rs. 200/-(Rupees Two Hundred) only per day of each account and totaling of Rs. 400/- (Rupees Four Hundred) on behalf of the O.P.s for depositing the same in the accounts of the Complainant and also used to make endorsement in both the passbook against the receipt of payment from the Complainant.
5. That, in the month of June 2015, after maturity of both the accounts of the Complainant as per instruction of the O.Ps, the authorized agent Prabir Saha insisted the Complainant to handover the original passbooks and the Complainant handed over the same for further process, so that the Complainant could get the maturity amount as early as possible.
6. That, after taking both the passbook and after lapse of considerable period the Complainant found that the authorized agent of the O.Ps had neglected to meet with the Complainant and on 01.11.2015 the Complainant went to the O.P. No. 2 and the O.P. No. 2 issued a receipt  daily deposit passbook of a sum of Rs. 72,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Thousand) only in respect of A/C being No. 121000546850 and the O.P. No. 2 requested the Complainant to come after few days for getting the another receipt in respect of the A/C No. 488252 after some official process.
7. That, the Complainant meet with the O.P. No. 2 on 06.11.2015, requested to issue another receipt in respect of A/C No. 488252 but the official of the O.P. No. 1 informed the Complainant the whole mature amount is already been withdrawn by the Complainant and there was no question to issue any voucher or receipt against his maturity.
8. That, the Complainant had never withdrawn any maturity amount from his account and it is crystal clear that the O.P. No 2 had misappropriated the hard earned money of the Complainant for the ulterior motive and thereafter the Complainant lodged a specific case with Siliguri P.S. being case no Siliguri P.S Case No. 564/2016 against the O.P. No. 2 and others.
9. That, the O.Ps are liable to pay whole maturity amount of Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand) only to the Complainant against the said deposit in the said scheme.
10. That, the O.P. No. 2 had intentionally neglected to disburse the matured amount of the Complainant and the Complainant had no other alternative than to served a demand notice to the O.P. No. 2 on 08.02.2017 and receiving the notice the O.P. No. 2 made a reply on 20.02.2017 stating that the O.P. No. 2 did not understand the language  of the said demand notice and also requested  the Complainant to produce the original documents regarding his deposit in respect of one account only.
11. That, the O.P. No. 2 has failed/ neglected to provide the service to the Complainant which he was entitled as a bonafide Consumer of the O.P.s and for the said poor and deficiency in service the Complainant had suffered both in financially, physically and mentally and same should be compensated by the O.P.s to the Complainant.
12. That, all the transaction been made within the jurisdiction of Siliguri and the Branch Office is also situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

To prove the case the Complainant has filed the following documents:

1. Xerox copy of Complaint dated 07.11.2023.
2. Xerox copy of Legal Notice dated 08.02.2017 along with postal receipt.
3. Xerox copy of reply letter dated 20.02.2017.
4. Xerox copy of daily deposit scheme book being A/C No 12100546850
5. Xerox copy of receipt of daily deposit passbook dated 01.11.2015.
6. Xerox copy of receipt of daily deposit passbook being A/C No. 488252.

On receipt of notice both the O.Ps have appeared before this Commission, filed W/V, denied all the material allegations of the Complainant. In the W/V both the O.Ps have stated that the Complainant has filed the case on some false allegation, there was no cause of action to file the case against them, the case is not maintainable in its present form either under law or under facts. The O.Ps have also stated that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the Complainant did not implead the collection agent namely Prabir Saha who is a necessary party of this case. It is also statedby the O.Ps that by suppressing the material facts the Complainant has filed the case to extort compensation amount and the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the Complainant has no locus stadii to file this case against them. The O.Ps have also stated thatthe amount deposited by the Complainant was irregular up to 02.02.2015 in A/C No. 121000546850 and there was no such account being no 488252 in the name of the Complainant with the O.P.s. The O.Ps has also stated that the authorized agent was provided POC Machine for issuing money receipt immediately after payment of money by the depositor and it was the duty of depositor to collect the money receipt from the agent as per norms of the concerned bank and the authorized agent of the O.P. did not collect passbook from the Complainant for further process and from the front page of the passbook it is specifically noted that the passbook must be submitted to the concerned Branch Manager at least once in every month for updatation or to authorized branch officer if he/she is on inspection and it is also noted in the first page of the passbook that if a passbook is not submitted at the branch at least once in a month for updatation and certification, bank shall not be held liable for any difference between the collection as per passbook and the office record and there was a gross negligence found on the part of the Complainant. The O.P.s have also stated that the Complainant did not met with the O.P. No. 2 on 01.11.2015 and the O.P. No. 2 did not issue a receipt a daily deposit passbook of a total sum of Rs. 72000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Thousand) only in respect of one account being no. 121000546850 as the O.P. No. 2 had no right to issue any receipt against the daily deposit as the authorized agent was provided POC Machine for issuing money receipt against daily deposit of money by the customer.

That the OPs have denied all the contents of Para No. 2 to 11 of the complaint and has stated that the O.Ps are not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 144000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand) to the Complainant against the daily deposit scheme and they also stated that the said agent of the O.P. along with other two agents were terminated by the authority of O.P. No. 1 due to breach of contract by the agents including the collection agent Prabir Saha and to alert the depositor, urgent notice was published in Bengali newspaper Uttar Banga Sambad on 14.10.2015 and the notice was telecasted through CCN Local Television Chanel for a period of seven (07) days on and from 14.10.2015 to 20.10.2015. The O.P.s have also stated that, after receiving the demand notice from the Complainant, they requested the complainant to produce all the necessary documents for the payment if any and there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps. By filing the W/V, the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of this case.

To falsify the case of the complainant the Ops have files written deposition in the form of an affidavit along with the following documents;

1. Certified copy of statement of account of Sashi Mohan Roy – Annexure-A
2. Certified copy of urgent notification vide memo no. 1046/J dt. 18.09.2015- Annexure –B
3. One Original passbook of Surajit Nath As Annexure-C
4. Certified copy of the notice in Bengali Daily News Paper Uttar Banga Sambad – Annexeure –D.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the complaint, W/V of the O.Ps  the following points are to be taken up for consideration by this Commission.

          Points for consideration  

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of his Complaint?

Decision with Reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

Complainant was given opportunity to prove its case by adducing evidence and by producing documents before this Commission. In order to prove this case the Complainant has filed written deposition in the form of an affidavit. In the written deposition the Complainant has categorically stated regarding the contents of the complaint. He also corroborated the entire case and he praying for necessary order in this regard.

In the written notes of arguments the Complainant has stated that he has been able to prove the case against the O.Ps and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for on the grounds that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OPs who despite maturity of the daily deposit scheme of the Complainant neglected to make payment of the maturity amount. In the written argument the Complainant has also stated that as per instruction of the OPs the agent namely Prabir Saha collected the passbook as well as other relevant papers from the Complainant but took no initiative so that the Complainant could get the maturity amount from the O.Ps. It is also argument of the Complainant that, when the Complainant went to the OPs requesting to make payment of the maturity amount in respect of two accounts of daily deposit scheme they paid no heed to the Complainant and thereby neglected to pay the same which is also clear deficiency in service on their part.

By filing written notes of argument Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps argued that the Complainant has failed to prove the case against the OPs by filing evidence on affidavit as well as by producing valid documents before this Commission. He also argued that receiving the demand notice of the Complainant the OPs have requested the Complainant to produce the passbook as well as money receipt regarding payment of daily deposit scheme but the Complainant did not produce the same. He also argued that on the front page of the passbook it was specifically written that if the passbook is not submitted at the branch at least once in a month for updation and certification bank shall not be held liable for any difference between the collection as per the passbook and office record.

Having heard the Ld. Advocated of the both side and on perusal of complaint, written deposition of the parties, documents filed by the complainant, written notes of argument and other materials of record, it reveals that, the Complainant has filed this case against the OPs stating that there was deficiency of service on the part of OPs and he praying for relief. It is admitted fact that the Complainant in his complaint as well as in his written deposition and in his written notes of argument has specifically stated that he deposited as sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand) only towards daily deposit in his two accounts through agent. But the Complainant to substantiate its claim neither produce any updated passbook in original before this Commission, nor he produce money receipt in original regarding payment of Rs. 1,44,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand)  only before this Commission. It is also admitted fact that of the Complainant that on receipt of demand notice from the Complainant the OP No. 2 make reply by requesting the Complainant to produce all the necessary documents for payment if any. But the Complainant is silent as to whether he produce the necessary documents including passbook before the OPs or not. Even the Complainant to substantiate its case before the Commission did not produce any passbook till today to prove the fact that money was deposited with the OPs on regular basis in two accounts of daily deposit scheme and without perusal of any updated passbook as well as money receipt, of the Complainant it is impossible to arrive at a decision to the effect that the Complainant make payment of Rs.1,44,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand)  only in the said scheme or not.

From careful scrutiny of the record it also reveals that, the Complainant did not state in his complaint since when the cause of action to file the case arose and upto which day it continued. The Complainant in his written complaint, written deposition and in his written notes of argument has specifically stated that, after maturity of both the accounts, as per instruction of the O.P.s, the authorized agent Prabir Saha insisted the Complainant to handover the original passbooks and accordingly the authorized agent collected the same from the Complainant for further process. In this regard, the Complainant neither produce any written document to prove the fact that, the O.P.s instructed the agent to collect the original passbooks from the Complainant, nor the complainant produced any document before this Commission to the effect that, he handed over the original passbooks to the agent of the O.P.s and the same was acknowledged by the O.Ps. On the other hand the complainant on receipt of reply of the demand notice from the O.P. No. 2 became silent as to whether he handed over the original passbooks to the O.Ps or not and the same has not been explained by the Complainant either in his written complaint or in his written deposition. It is also not explained in the Complaint as to what prevented the complainant to explain the O.Ps that, he had already handed over the original passbooks to the agent Prabir Saha. Moreover, the Complainant did not implead the said agent namely Prabir Saha as opposite party of this case who is a necessary party to whom the Complainant allegedly handed over the original passbooks and other documents for reimbursement of the maturity amount. Moreover Ld. Advocate of the OP by filing documents has proved that the account being no. 121000546850 stands in the name of the complainant Sashi Mohan Roy where his last balance amount was of Rs. 1983/- on 30.06.2016.  Against that statements of account of the complainant he did not raise any objection and did not filed his own original bank passbook before this commission to counter the bank statement which has been submitted by the Ops.

Considering all and considering the non production of the original bank passbook as well as original money receipts by the complainant we are of the view that the Complainant has not been able to prove its case against the OPs.

Hence,

                                                                                    O r d e r e d                                

That, the instant Consumer Case Being No. 22/2017 is hereby dismissed on contest but without any cost.

                                    Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.