IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/116/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

    24.07.17                                  22.09.17                                                    22.04.19

Complainant: Achintya Basak, Prop. Gouri Gunea  House

37, S.N. Bhattacharjee Road,

PO & PS- Berhampore, Pin- 742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. Mampi Das (Mondal)

W/O- Sadhan Mondal,

Vill & PO- Balarampur, NH-34,

PS- Berhampore,Pin-742101

2.Branch Manager, Bandhan Bank Ltd.

Shopping Plaza, 1st Floor, Kadai,

S.N. Bhattacharjee Road,

 PO & PS- Berhampore,

Pin- 742101

3.Branch Manager, Union Bank Of India,

 Berhampore Branch

Near Old Hospital,

24,Radhika Mohon Sen Road,

PO & PS- Berhampore,

Pin- 742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Sri. Joydeep Mishra.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Joydeb Mondal.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri. Sankar Pr. Saha.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 : Sri. Subhash Saha.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

     This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Gouri Gunea House, Prop. Achintya Basak (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Mampi Das (Mondal) and Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows.

                The Complainant is a business man and he has a jwellery shop.  On 03.10.16, the OP No.1 purchased gold ornaments for Rs.15008.19/- and paid Rs.3008.19/- in cash and Rs.12,000/- through a debit card being No.50150009297946. The said debit card in his account with the OP No.2 Bank and the said amount ought to be credited in the account of the Complainant at OP No.3. The Complainant requested the OP No.3 to let him know about the amount of Rs.12,000/-and  the OP No.2 informed the Complainant that the said amount has been debited   from  the account of the Complainant. The OP No. 2 and 3 have deficiency in service as the amount has not been credited in the account of the complainant at O.P.No.3 Bank.  Hence, the Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP Nos. 2 and 3 to pay the said amount of Rs.12,000/- to the Complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

            The OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version on 06.11.17, contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the case of the OP No.2 that the Complainant used debit card of his account amounting Rs.12,000/- on 03.10.16 for making payment and the said amount was debited from his account on the same date. It is also asserted that the OP No.2 took all possible steps to credit the amount in the account of the Complainant at O.P. No.3 bank on the same date and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

            The OP No.1 and OP No.3 put their appearance but did not file any written version  but they have taken part in hearing of argument.

            On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper   adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OP Nos. 1&3 any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP Nos.1&2 for consideration.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OP for consideration.

Point No.2

             The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.

Point Nos. 3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No.3 has filed a statement of account of the Complainant and it appears from that statement of account that an amount of Rs.11,858.40/- was credited in the account of the Complainant. He submits that the amount of Rs.12,000/- ought to be credited on 03.10.16.  He submits that the OP Nos.2 and 3 have deficiency in service.

            The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that the OP No.2 has already issued a letter to the OP No.3 with a copy to the OP No.1 dated 26.10.16 conforming that the amount of Rs.12,000/- was debited from his account on 03.10.16 for POS transaction done at Gouri Gunea House. He argues that the OP No.2 has submitted the statement of accounts showing the detailed transactions of the account of the Complainant. He submits that the OP No.2 has no deficiency in service.

        The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OP No.1 has nothing to say as she paid the amount of Rs.12,000/- through debit card.

            The ld. Advocate for the OP No.3 submits that the amount of Rs.11,458.40/- was credited in the account of the Complainant on 25.10.17 by the OP No.3 after deducting the commission out of Rs.12,000/-.

         No evidence is filed by either of the parties. There is no explanation given by the OP No.3 why the said amount was not credited on 03.10.16 and why the amount was credited after a lapse of about one year. We thik that the OP No.3 has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3.

            We think that the OP No.3 may be directed to pay interest @ 8% p.a. with effect from 03.10.16 to 25.10.17 for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. We find no justification to pass any order against the OP Nos.1 and 2.

   Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 24.07.17 and admitted on 22.09.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders..

In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint case No. CC/116/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.3 with cost and dismissed against the OP No.1 and 2 without cost.

            The OP No.3 is directed to pay interest @ 8% Per Annum with effect from 03.10.16 to 25.10.17 for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.

            Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          President

  Member                                                                                                   President.