Hon’ble Mr. Manojit Mandal, President
This is a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The Complainant Smt. Gita Sen has stated inter-alia that she is a S/B Account holder of the ICICI Bank, Cooch Behar Branch bearing A/C No.067001506402. From the very first day of her Account opening, Sri Sanu Barman, an employee of the said Bank attended her in the Bank. Subsequently, said Sri Sanu Barman used to visit in her residence with his colleagues for convincing her to enter into ICICI Prudential Guaranteed Wealth Protector Policy. Gradually, said Sri Sanu Barman became very close to her and her husband and turned her to involve in a few other schemes. Accordingly, she invested money in few schemes. All these investments became indistinct and hazardous to her since 2016. For such investment, Sri Sanu Barman used to collect cash from her residence in presence of her husband and his colleagues from time to time for deposit in her Account.
On 05.09.2016, Sri Sanu Barman i.e. O.P No.1 collected Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only from the Complainant in her residence with a plea that premiums of her policies had to be paid. He offered her two receipts of different nature. One receipt for Rs.50,000/-, which was meant for Fixed Deposit, but there was no entry of the deposited amount in her S/B Account on that date, whereas the amount of Rs.50,000/- was debited from her balance in the said Account on 05.09.2016 towards Fixed Deposit. The other receipt was meant for Recurring Deposit. Surprisingly, there was no mention of money amount. Instead, Sri Sanu Barman mentioned the period of 12 months only. No cash was deposited in her Account for 12 months. The Pass Book showed regular deductions against her Recurring Deposit.
Further case of the Complainant is that a mediation was held in the Office of the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar Regional Office and during mediation, Sri Malay Mukherjee, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Cooch Behar admitted the system of cash collection from the parties. On queries by the Complainant, Sri Sanu Barman somehow tried her to explain but her confusion and doubts remained. The Complainant met Sri Swarnendu Roy, an employee of the Bank, many more times for satisfactory reply of her queries. She met the Manager of the Bank with Sri Roy on 16.08.2017 and they showed the Bank papers which were not in congruity with the receipts and Pass Book record. On 18.08.2017, the Complainant submitted a complaint against Sri Sanu Barman to the Bank Manager for fraud with a prayer for immediate action. During the last part of 2016, said Sanu Barman was not available in the Bank. The Bank Manager admitted on 14.09.17 that the O.P No.1 i.e. Sri Sanu Barman was absconding since 16.12.2016. Subsequently, the Complainant came to know that the O.P No.1 was under jail custody due to charges of corruption.
Further case of the Complainant is that the Bank Manager assured on 25.10.2017 in the meeting of mediation that Sri Sanu Barman would be made available in the Bank for face to face interaction with the Complainant. After a few days, a mobile call was made to the Bank Manager on 13.11.17. The Bank Manager replied that a messenger would be sent to Sri Sanu Barman’s home. On 21.10.17, the O.P No.2 i.e. the Bank Manager, ICICI Bank informed that the O.P. No.1 i.e. Sri Sanu Barman had sent a message that he would come to the Office and the Complainant would be informed accordingly, but no response was received so far from the Bank Manager i.e. O.P No.2. Hence, this case.
The O.P. No.1 entered appearance in this case through his Advocates Sri Bimal Saha and Smt. Tania Dey. But, ultimately, he did not contest this case.
Summon upon the O.P No.2 was duly served but the O.P No.2 did not turn up to contest the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief and/or reliefs, if any, is the Complainant entitled to get?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for consideration.
We have carefully examined the entire materials on record including the examination in chief of the Complainant and the documents on record. We have also given a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced by the Complainant before us.
It is alleged in the petition of the Complainant that the Complainant is a S/B Account holder of the ICICI Bank, Cooch Behar Branch bearing A/C No.067001506402. On 05.09.2016 Sri Sanu Barman i.e. O.P No.1 collected Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only from her in her residence with a plea that premiums of her policies had to be paid. On demand, he offered her two receipts of different nature. It is also alleged that one receipt is for Rs.50,000/-, which is meant for Fixed Deposit. There is no entry of the deposited amount in her S/B Account on that date, whereas the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been debited from her Account on 05.09.2016 towards Fixed Deposit and the other receipt is meant for Recurring Deposit. Surprisingly, there is no mention of money amount, instead, he mentioned the period of 12 months. It is also alleged that here is also, no cash deposit in her S/B Account for 12 months where the Pass Book shows regular deductions against her Recurring Deposit. Then, where her money goes?
It is also alleged that the O.P No.2 admitted the system of cash collection from the parties. But the record goes to show that the Complainant has nowhere stated in her petition of complaint that Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only has been deposited into ICICI Bank, Cooch Behar Branch and there was “deficiency in service” on the part of the O.P Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that inconvenience, loss and injury which was allegedly caused to the Complainant, was caused due to the negligence on the part of the O.P Bank. In the premises noted above, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted against the Bank concerned.
As regards the O.P No.1, the case of the Complainant is that on 05.09.2016 Sri Sanu Barman i.e. O.P No.1 collected Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only from her in her residence with a plea that premiums of her policies had to be paid. To prove the case in this regard, the Complainant has not produced any receipt issued by the said Sri Sanu Barman. Without money receipt issued by Sri Sanu Barman, it cannot be said that Sri Sanu Barman collected Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only from the Complainant. Except the Complainant herself, no other witness has come forward to support the case of the Complainant and no one has deposed that he saw Sri Sanu Barman to receive any money from the Complainant. This apart, the Complainant has nowhere stated in the petition of complaint about the source of money amounting to Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) only. Therefore, it appears that there is a cloud of doubt about the case of the Complainant. Therefore, it may be concluded that the Complainant has failed to prove that the O.P No.1 though received the money from the Complainant, did not deposit the same under the scheme.
Under these facts and circumstances and on consideration of the evidence and the materials on record, we are of the view that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps. As such, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
All these points are thus decided and disposed of against the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint case fails. Fees are paid correctly.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the O.Ps without any cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of this Final Order/Judgement is also available at www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
