West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/610/2015

Soumendra Nath Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Saumen Sekhar Ghosh

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT - II (CENTRAL)
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/610/2015
 
1. Soumendra Nath Ghosh
194-B, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata-700047.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd.
Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017. P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
2. Soma Ghosh, Employee IDBI Bank, Shakespeare Sarani
Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017. P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sangita Paul MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Pulak Kumar Singha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Saumen Sekhar Ghosh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 10 Aug 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Order-19.

Date-10/08/2016.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          The case of the complainant, in short, is that he is an account holder of IDBI Bank having NRO Account No.NNNNN67494 for last 20 years.  He has regular transaction with the OP Bank. Suddenly, on 08-09-2014 it was found that an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was transferred to some unknown account without any information or knowledge of the complainant.  The complainant had never asked to debit his account by Rs.3 lakhs.  The complainant at once enquired the matter to the Bank.  The complainant also informed the matter to OP2 who looks after the account of the complainant.  OP2, however, assured the complainant that the matter will be sorted out within one month and to wait for few days.  The complainant also informed the matter to the Commissioner of Police and Cyber Crime Deptt. at Lalbazar, Kolkata on 16-11-2015 but to no result.  The complainant also informed to the IDBI Bank, Shakespeare Sarani, being the main branch vide letter dated 16-11-2015.  The Bank, however, return Rs.2,06,000/- and has not clear the rest of Rs.94,000/- which is still due along with interest.   Already one year has elapsed, the remaining amount has not been transferred to the account of the complainant or refunded.  The OP is always trying to put the burden on the shoulder of the complainant.  Hence, this case.

          Neither of the OPs have appeared in this case nor filed written version or contested the case.  The case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.

Point for Decision

  1. Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering banking service to the complainant?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

 

Decision with Reasons

We have browsed over the documents on record namely authorization letter, e-mails of different dates as filed from the side of the complainant.  We find that the complainant is an account holder bearing account No.NNNNN67494 in OP Bank.  It also appears his account was debited by Rs.3 lakhs on 08-09-2014.  The complainant never instructed the bank authority for such debit his account by Rs.3 lakhs.  The Bank Authority could not produce any document what was this debit for or who advised this debit or where did this money go.  It also appears that Ms. Soma Bose who looks after the said account of the complainant mailed and informed the complainant regarding the debit and assured him on behalf of the bank that the matter would be sorted out.  We, however, find that the bank ultimately, refunded Rs.2,06,000/- but has not refunded Rs.94,000/- till date. 

          A bank is bound by the act of negligence of its staff during the course of employment.  Thus, where the bank cashier fails to account for the money deposited with the bank, the bank would be liable and bank may be held liable for deficiency in service.  We think that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not returning the remaining amount of Rs.94,000/-.  The transfer of money to some unknown person or to unknown account without any instruction of the account holder would amount to deficiency of service. 

None came from the side of the OPs to challenge or controvert the version of the complainant.  The Evidence-in-Affidavit remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.  In absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record and having regard to the materials on record we think that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

In result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte but on merit against the OPs.

          OP1 is directed to refund Rs.94,000/- along with interest  at the rate of9 percent p.a. to the account of the complainant w.e.f. 08-09-2014 apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from this order.

          OP1 is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and for causing mental pain and agony within the said stipulated period. 

          Failure to comply the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act.

          We make no order as against OP2.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sangita Paul]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pulak Kumar Singha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.