IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/69/2020
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
30.07.2020 19.08.2020 19.12.22
Complainant: Sanat Bose,
Secretary Murshidabad District Bus,
Paribahan Karmachari Union Berhampore,
P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore,
Bus Stand, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin- 742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1) The Manager, Bank of India
Berhampore Branch,
P.O. - Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742101.
2) Nirupam Bajpayee,
S/O Narayan Chandra Bajpayee,
Of 139 Bishnupur Road,
P.O.- Cossimbazar Raj,
P.S.- Berhampore town,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742102
3) Basudeb Dey Sarkar,
S/o Sambhunath Dey Sarkar,
Of Karbala Road, P.O.- Cossimbazar Raj,
P.S.-Berhampore Town
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742102
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sampa Roy
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Kalpataru Ghosh.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sanat Bose (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, Bank of India, Berhampore Branch and Ors. (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 the Secretary of Murshidabad District Bus Paribahan Karmachari Union which was registered under the Trade Union Act being Registration No. 28664. The Complainant is the Secretary of the said Union and Nirupam Bajpayee was the President and Basudeb Deysarkar was the Trasures of the said Union. Due to some illegal activities of Bank Account being A/C No- 421020110000905 Nirupam Bajpayee and Basudeb Dey Sarkar, the Secretary by regd. Letter at:- 05/03/2020 informed the above two persons to attain a meeting called by the Secretary on 17/03/2020 over that issue. As Nirumpam Bajpayee and Basudeb Dey Sarkar did not attend the meeting so the Executive Committee of the Union has been reconstituted as proposed by all the members present at the meeting Comprising Meer Anisurjaman as President, Naba Kumar Pal as working President, Anup Biswas as Vice Present, Sanat Bose as Secretary, Asutosh Sarkar as Assistant Secretary and Tinka Mandal as Treasurer that as per resolution the said meeting duly signed by Anup Biswas who presided over the said meeting. In that meeting it was decided and resolved that the operation of Bank Account was charged to that effect that present Secretary Sanat Bose along with Meer Anisurjaman and Tinka Mandal in place of Nirupam Bajpayee and Basudeb Dey Sarkar has been authorized to operate the said account with the further condition that either of the two operators are authorized to withdraw the money by signing cheques. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 1 Manager Bank of the India was requested on 20.03.2020 to change the name of the aforesaid account in terms of resolution and to allow the present operator to operate the account for carrying out smooth functioning of Union. Thereafter again one letter was issued to OP No. 1 by the Complainant through their advocate. After receiving that letter the O.P. No. 1 served a letter dated 20.06.2020 denying the said resolution and with held the transaction of the account and without assigning any cogent reason. This act of OP No. 1 amounts to deficiency of service towards customer.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission with a prayer to direct the O.P. No. 1 for recording the change of operation of Bank A/C being No. 421020110000905 stands in the name of Nirupam Bajpayee and Basudeb Sarkar in terms of the resolution dated 17.03.2020 in compliance of the norms of the Bank and to allow the change operators to operate account to Sanat bose. Meer Anisurjaman and Tinka Mondal. Authroised to operate the said account with further condition that either of the two operators is authorized to withdraw the money by signing cheques and also direct the Ops to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment, mental agony and pressure and of any other cost or costs which the Ld. Commission deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.
Decision with Reasons:
Record shows that the O.P, the Manager, Bank of India received notice on 13.11.2020 as per postal A/D Card since then this O.P. has not filed W/V. The O.P. 2 and O.P. 3 filed a petition on 25.01.2022 & 19.04.2022 praying for time for filing W/V but they have not filed W/V. The record further shows that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. The conduct of the Complainant indicates that the Complainant is not at all interested in this case. However, we peruse materials on record. The letter dated 20.06.2020 written by Bank of India addressed to Sampa Roy ld. advocate is required to be mentioned here. Here we find that the Manager, Bank of India informed Sampa Roy, ld. advocate to the effect that they had received their application for changing of operating authority. However, another group consisting of the former office bearers came to their branch and objected the election of new office bearers and disputed the above mentioned change in authority and signature in the above account. Now as per established practice and custodian of public policy upon sensing a dispute between members of the union, we are left with no other choice but to stop the transaction in the account with immediate effect. Further they want to stress upon the fact that they are here for giving service to all the customers, but the present matter is not a matter of bank, rather it required internal resolution of the union over which they have no control. So, they requested the ld. advocate to advice their client to get the things in order in their organization, so that they can provide by the service available to current account holders.
Here we prima facie find that the bank is justified in answering the letter dated on 16.06.2020 of the ld advocate Sampa Roy.
The point to be noted is that we have already mentioned that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period and he was not filed evidence in support of his case.
In view of the matter discussed above we are of the view that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 30.07.2020 and admitted on 19.08.2020. This Commission 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 is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/69/2020 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the OPs but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
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 Member President.
