DATE OF FILING                    :           10-01-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :         08-03-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :           29-04-2013. 

Dipak Patra,

son of Nalini Patra,

village – Amberia, P.S. South Shibpur,

P.S. Shyampur,

District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

M/S. United Co/operative Bank Ltd.,

( formerly known as Bagnan Co-operative Bank Ltd. )

head office and registered office

Bagnan Station Road ( N ),

P.O. & P.S. Bagnan,

District -  Howrah,

PIN  – 711303.-----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

Complainant, Sri Dipak Patra by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P., M/S. United Co. O.P. Bank Ltd. to refund the total maturity deposit of  Rs. 8,260/- lying in the account being no. 14854 along with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment along with incidental cost of the instant proceeding together with further relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

Brief fact of the case is that on being persuaded and convinced by one, namely,

Bholanath Pakhira, complainant opened a daily account with the O.P. being a/c no. 14854. And the General Manager of the O.P., Bank, also assured that Bholanath Pakhira was their authorized agent when complainant went to the registered and head office of the O.P. Bank. Complainant was going on depositing in the said account and when the time for maturity arose, said agent appeared and visited the complainant and again convinced him and obtained his signature on same documents along with the passbook. The said agent went away with all these assuring the complainant that he would make necessary arrangements for  handing over the maturity proceeds i.e., Rs. 8,260/- to the complainant. Since then that agent never turned up and when complainant went to the bank asking for

withdrawal of said amount, Bank asked him to bring the pass book, they issued in his favour and the bank was also searching for the said agent as he become untraceable.  Thereafter complainant went to the said agent’s residence but found that he had left that place and nobody knew his whereabouts. Complainant again visited the bank for their assistance but he was refused by the bank. And suddenly on 14-09-2009 complainant received a lawyer’s notice from the bank claiming for Rs. 17,272.12 from him on the ground that complainant took a loan from the O.P. vide annexure letter dated 14-09-2009. Immediately he lodged one G.D. with  Shyampur P.S. vide annexure Xerox copy of the  G.D. dated 26-10-2009 no. 1420/09. And on several occasions, complainant visited o.p. bank to withdraw the said amount, but he was refused. Even complainant requested the bank authority to show him the papers / form on the basis of which such alleged loan was granted by them, but O.P. never made any document available to him. And again on 14-01-2012, complainant got another lawyer’s notice from O.P.  asking for the immediate payment of Rs. 26,987.30 lying outstanding in his name as loan amount vide letter dated 14-01-2012. Complainant lodged another G.D. with Shyampur P.S. dated 27-01-2012 no. 1352. He also lodged a written complaint on 26-06-2012 with Shyampur P.S. stating the entire fact, and also made a written representation to S.P. Howrah Rural District on 25-07-2012.   And on 30-07-2012, complainant sent one reply cum lawyer’s notice to O.P. vide annexure letter dated 30-07-2012 denying and disputing the contention of O.P. made out in their letter dated 14-09-2009 and 14-01-2012. And alleging deficiency in service and for adopting unfair trade practice, complainant filed this instant case before this Forum praying for aforesaid relief.

Notice was served upon O.P. But even after  receiving notice on 19-01-2013,

O.P. never appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte.

Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

   Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone

through the examination-in-chief and documents filed by the complainant. The name of the account itself suggests that complainant used to deposit his daily savings in that account. And as one of the highest officials, like general manager of O.P., identified the said Bholanath Pakhira as their authorized agent, complainant going on accumulating his little savings since 14-03-2001 with the O.P. which became an amount of Rs. 8,260/- at the maturity. May be he is a daily wage-earner and at the end of the day he could save very little amount which he was depositing with the bank. We all know that for the act of the agent, principal is liable. A person who has made a daily account with the O.P. likely to be little educated. So, for obtaining  his signature on the printed form / document, the

said agent did not face any trouble, and  by using that, said agent availed of the alleged loan amount. But it is again deficiency on the part of the O.P. not to show all these documents by which such loan was granted. When the bank is dealing with the public money, its activity should be fair, legal and transparent, where is that sanction letter showing granting of such loan. In absence of bank, we are really in dark. Even after receiving notice, when bank never turned up or filed any written version contesting the case, it is crystal clear that bank has nothing to controvert the allegations made out by the complainant against them. And for us, there is no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. 

Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with cost against O.P.

                Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                That the C. C. Case No. 5 of 2013 ( HDF 5 of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P. 

                The O.P. is  directed to refund Rs. 8,260/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry an interest @  10%  p.a. till actual payment. The O.P. is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment. The O.P. is also strongly directed not to send any lawyer’s letter claiming any outstanding loan amount from the complainant or his legal heirs in any future course of time without stating the particular loan account as well as the daily account being no. 14854. .

                The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

                Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.