This is a case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant with the prayer directing the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs 10,00000/- for harassment and mental pain  with litigation cost.

The case of the complainant in brief is that petitioner Rubi Jesmine Chowdhury, W/O Tarabudin Chowdhury of Raignaj is a bonafide savings Bank A/C holder of Punjab National Bank  Raiganj Branch vide A/C No. 0937000104029131 . She received a cheque vide No. 833164 for Rs 60,00000/- from her husband as well as brother in law i.e. OP No. 3 on account of share of capital from joint business. She deposited the cheque to her A/C on 20.08.2013 to OP NO. 1 i.e. PNB at Raiganj Branch but on the same day OP NO. 3 lodged a complain before O.C. Matigarah out post dist Darjeeling in connection with the cheque objecting the withdrawal of the cheque amount by petitioner.

However OP No. 3 afterwards settle the matter with the husband of the petitioner  before  O.C Karnojora out post at Uttar Dinajpur . The matter was informed to the Bank concerned that OP No. 3 does not have any objection if the concerned Bank permit petitioner to withdraw and encash the amount. The husband of the petitioner also informed OP No. 1 for withdrawing the cheque amount . But OP No. 1 issued a letter in favour of the petitioner stating that the A/C was free zed and petitioner became unable to operate her account following complaint by the cheque A/C holder.

Petitioner sends several reminders to the Bank to with draw the amount but OP No. 1 did not permit her to operate her A/C. Petitioner thereafter collected NOC from OC Matigarah P.S. certifying that “  over the complaint no specific case has been recorded ’’ due to amicable settlement between the parties and compromise letter submitted  to the P.S. to that effect. The petitioner alleges that she submitted the certificate to OP No. 1 but OP No. 1 whimsically freeze the A/C .

Then Petitioner issued letter dt. 30.11.13 to OP No. 1 , who received the same but harassed her and she suffered monitory loss in her contractor business work for such non payment of cheque amount by OP No 1. She lodged complain before superior to OP No. 1 . but at last the A/C was opened on 30.01.2014 . Cause of action arose on 26.08.13 when the OP.s Bank freeze the A/C and continue day by day . So petitioner filed this case before this Forum praying for compensation for unnecessary harassment e.t.c.   

The OP No. 1 contested the case by filing written version . The O.P. No.2 and 3 did not  contest the case  inspite of service of notice & the case is heard Ex- parte against them. The O.P. No 1 contested the case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, that the allegation made in the complaint all frivolous & fictitious. OP admitted that petitioner is having savings A/C in its Bank. That husband and brother in law are business partner and that OP No. 3 is a current A/C holder PNB Malda branch vide A/C No. 3975002100014312. That the husband of petitioner committed theft of stole a signed cheque of OP No. 3 vide cheque No. 833164 and husband of the petitioner put an amount Rs  6000000/- and delivered the cheque in favour of petitioner. Petitioner gradually deposited the same  in her A/C . Then the amount was debited from  the A/C of Op No. 3 which fact was readly informed to Op No. 3 by mobile message. Then and there Op No. 3 telephoned the Toll free No. of PNB and stated everything alleging about the fraud. At the same time OP No. 3 immediately informed in writing to nearest Matigara P.S on his way vide G.D No. 1066 dt. 20.08.13. Next day i.e. on 21.08.13 OP No. 3 lodged a petition before the Branch Mnager to the effect that husband of petitioner stole a signed cheque, put amount Rs 6,00000/- etc.  objecting the withdrawal of said cheque amount by the petitioner. OP no. 1 also informed petitioner when she complaint that she is unable to operate her A/C . That the A/C was freezed as per Banking norms on the besis of specific GDE. That it can be withdrawn after proper investigation and settlement of case and that OP. No.1 is duty bound to freeze the A/C.

O.P. further stated that on 21.11.13 before OP No. 1 petitioner submitted a certificate of OC Matigara P.S. dt. 08.11.13  to the effect that no specific case has been recorded at that P.S. on the basics of GDE 1066 and that OP No. 3 was advised to lodge a complaint to the concerned P.S. where the crime actually occurred.  Op No. thereafter on 07.12.13 sent letter to Matigara P.S. Asking to supply documents showing  1.  Whether specific case has been started and 2. Whether there is compromise/ settlement if any or compromise letter.

Meanwhile petitioner filed a petition before OP. NO. 1 on 30.11.13 seeking permission to withdraw amount from her A/C which she could not operate for last 3 months inspite of filing documents showing compromise / certificate of O.C Matigara P.S. etc.   Op No. 1 in reply stated to Petitioner that without written instruction of Op No. 3 and without any compromise letter the freezing of A/C cannot be withdrawn.

OP further stated that on 02.01.14 he sent a letter to his superior to the senior manager PNB Siliguri with reference to the verification of letter issued from Matigara P.S.  & that his superior Circle Head  had instructed him for early verification of the matter through the Branch of  PNB at siliguri. All these are to expedited the matter to withdraw the freezing of A/C to provide customer service to petitioner.

So, there is no negligence of OP No. 1 and no deficiency in service.  Therefore, OP prays for rejection of this complaint case. 

                                  DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Petitioner was examined as PW. 1 she narrated the case as per version of complaint petition and was cross examined We carefully perused the evidence of complaint and the documents filed including Xerox copy of Pass Book, Xerox copies of letter dt. 20.08.13, 26.08.13, 07.11.13 30.11.13, the certificate of Matigara P.S. dt. 08.11.13 and Xerox copy of compromise dt. 25.08.13. Moreover OP No. 1 filed questionnaires & petitioner filed answers in respect of the questionnaires. Peruse the W.V., evidence of OPW 1 and the  documents filed by the Op 1 including original letter of complaint letter dt. 30.11.13 and carbon copy of letters dt. 07.01.13 & 02.01.14 and copy of letter dt. 26.08.13.  Both petitioner & OP 1 filed written argument also. After going through the contents of the documents and hearing arguments advanced by the parties considered the argument advanced by the contesting parties this Forum come to the following conclusion

That a serious allegation of theft of a signed cheque and transfer of a heavy amount of Rs 600000/-  fraudulently from the A/C of one Sarfarash Chowdhury to the A/C of complainant Rubi Jesmine Chowdhury is the crust of the matter. The allegation in writing to the PS and GD entry as well as complaint in writing to the Bank by sarfra Chowdhry OP No. 3 led to the freezing of the A/C of the petitioner . The  petitioner inconsequence was unable to operate her A/C for a considerable period of time . Interestingly the disputing parties immediately compromised the matter among themselves . But the fact of the compromise was actually behind the knowledge of the OP 1. When it came to the knowledge of OP 1 and petitioner repeatedly asked for withdrawal of freezing of her A/C to the OP Bank and letter of petitioner dt. 30.11.13 to that effect in original is also filed by OP No. 1. Wherein She mentioned  a notice /certificate Matigara PS. and a compromise letter between the husband of the petitioner & OP No. 3. at the same time  from the documents filed by the OP it reveals the Bank sent a letter dt. 07.12.13 to OC Matigara PS. with reference to GD entry regarding the theft of cheque whether any specific case was started , whether any compromise  or settlement effected , compromise letter if any etc. On 02.01.14 OP No. 1 also sent letter to senior Manager Siliguri Branch regarding early verification of the matter through Siliguri Branch. It appears that the A/C was freezed following serious allegation. Proper verification was necessary. Time is required to complete the process to get an order of withdrawal of freezing of the A/C of the petitioner.  Ultimately the A/C was activated from 30.01.14 .There were various correspondence following the GD. entry at Matigara PS. on 20.08.13 till last correspondence letter dt. 02.01.14 which we have mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs. This Forum can not hold that there is actually any deficiency of service from the part of the Bank Authority to with draw the freezing and to give satisfactory customer service to the petitioner. The time required for official compliance as part of Investigation of serious allegation of fraud involving an heavy amount of Rs 6,00000/-  .We  do not find any latches  on the part of OP No. 1. On the other hand petitioner took a lengthy time and failed to bring OP NO. 3 to the Bank to establish that the matter was compromised between the parties and that there was no allegation against petitioner by OP No. 3 following the compromise. Petitioner also failed to prove by any cogent document that she had any contractor business or that she faces any financial loss in any such business as alleged.  In such circumstances this Forum can safely conclude that petitioner fails to prove that there was any deficiency of service by OP  Bank or willful negligence or harassment of petitioners by the OPs. Therefore the petitioner is not entitle to get any relief  against OP in this case.       

Thus the case of the complainant is fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

Thus the complaint being No. CC/47/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No. 1 & exparte against OP No. 2 & 3 without cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.