Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 03/05/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.510/2007, Mr.Vishnu Shivram Painaik V/s. The Branch Manager, The North Kanara GSB Co-op. Bank Ltd., by District Consumer Forum, Thane.
The dispute revolves over the fact as to whether two deposits each of `49,000/- were kept on 25/05/2005 or only one deposit of `49,000/- was kept by the respondent/org. complainant. According to the complainant, he had deposited amount for two deposits, but only one certificate was issued to him and subsequently realizing that the interest was not paid, he made enquiries and then, it was pointed out to him that only one deposit of `49,000/- was kept and therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Bank, this consumer complaint was filed on 06/11/2007. Forum below accepted the contention of the complainant and directed the O.P./Bank to pay `49,000/- along with interest. Feeling aggrieved thereby, org. O.P./Bank preferred this appeal.
We heard Mr.N.N. Bhadrashete, Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person. Perused the record.
Admittedly, there is only one deposit receipt issued to the respondent/org. complainant bearing FDR No.1293/1, Customer No.7500 for `49,000/- with maturity date 25/03/2007 and interest payable was shown as `9,158/-. Corresponding record of the Bank shows receipt of one deposit only. It is alleged by the complainant that the cashier who has handled the cash might have falsely shown only one receipt for `49,000/-. Whatever it may be, but such type of dispute, when, particularly, it is disputed by the Bank that there were never two deposits, such dispute cannot be gone into by Consumer Fora since it involves complex factual situation. A useful reference can be made on this point to decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Munimahesh Patel, 2006 CTJ 173 (SC) (CP). The Forum below also failed to appreciate properly the contention as to the limitation which was raised by the O.P./appellant-Bank. Admittedly, there was no application for condonation of delay. As per statement of the respondent/org. complainant himself that he came to know about issuing only one deposit receipt and not crediting `49,000/- for another deposit receipt on 01/09/2005 and complaint was filed on 06/11/2007. Therefore, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC), the complaint is time-barred and Forum below erred in taking cognizance thereof. In the instant case, the deposit is alleged to be kept with the Bank namely The North Kanara GSB Co-op. Bank Ltd. This Bank is not made a party. The Branch Manager, who is merely an official of the Bank (that too not named) cannot be a service provider. Therefore, the order stands vitiated. Considering the nature of dispute, it is for the complainant to pursue a right remedy before the right Forum.
For all these reasons, we find that the impugned order cannot be supported. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03/05/2010 is quashed and set aside. In the result, consumer complaint No.510/2007 stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
