HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

          This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 03/08/2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, South 24-Paganas, Alipore in CC/71/2009 wherein Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the said complaint case passed a decree on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and directed the OP/Bank to repay a sum of Rs. 83,414/- (Rupees eighty three thousand four hundred and fourteen) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of debit, within one month from the date of the order. The OP was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony with default clause.

          The facts of the case in brief, was that the complainants maintained a joint savings bank account no. 2808 SB account no. 4984 in the name of the OPs/complainant no. 2 and SB Account no. 5941 in the name of the complaint no. 1. Inspite of these three Savings Accounts the complainants, being a couple, maintained a Daily Collection Account being Account no. 2271. The complainants deposited money in their savings accounts on regular basis and they were in the habit of maintaining pass books regularly but all on a sudden on verification of the pass books they found some discrepancies and anomalies in their above noted accounts for which the complainants sent a legal notice upon the OP/Bank to look into the matter and asked them to return their entire amount illegally withdrawn from their respective accounts for misappropriation of the same by the concerned Bank. Since no response came from the OP/Bank, the complainants rushed to the DCDRF, 24 Paganas (South) at Alipore seeking reliefs in terms of the prayers of their application in CC/71/2009.

          The Syndicate Bank, being the OP of the original complaint case filed a written version before the Forum concerned to contest the same and contended that the allegations against the OP were hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. Denying and disputing the cause of action as stated in the petition of complaint being CC/71/2009 the Bank authority being the OP of the said complaint case categorically stated that they never misappropriated the amount and ultimately dismissal of the complaint case was prayed for.

          Ld. Trail Forum in the impugned judgment found the allegations against the OP more believable and passed a decree in favour of the complainant and directed the OP/Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 12,83,414/- (Rupees twelve lakh eighty three thousand four hundred fourteen) with interest @ 9% per annum for compensation, harassment and mental agony etc. but it did not consider how the allegation against the OP convinced the Forum concerned. Moreover, it was argued that the cause of action arose sometime in 2005 but the complaint case was filed in 2009, i.e. after a lapse of four years which was contrary to the provisions of section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act particularly when no application for condonation of delay was taken into account though it was specifically pleaded in paragraph 2 of the written version, filed on behalf of the Bank.  A series of documents which are at pages 47 to 58 in the file, produced from the custody of the bank convincingly establishing the line of defence as taken by the Bank, a financial institution which also produced the specimen signature of the Account Holders (at pages 56 to 58). The documents which are at pages 51 to 53 particularly the page no. 53 concerning a letter of request for additional loan/credit facilities bears the signature of both the complainants. Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP/Bank in course of argument drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Subhas Motilal Shah (HUF) – vs – Malegaon Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 2013 (2) CPR 1 (NC) and pointed out that the business bank account does not come under the purview Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          From the given facts and circumstances of the case and the documents produced on behalf of the Bank Authority, it is convincingly established that the complainants wanted to take a chance to get rid of the Bank loan on the plea of discrepancies in the Statement of Accounts as provided by the Bank Authority and their main allegation was that the Bank concerned misappropriated the amount but that allegation has not been proved though the cardinal principle of law is that one who makes an allegation requires to prove it beyond any doubt. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Rabindra Kumar Pal – vs- Standard Chartered Bank and another, reported in 2011 CTJ 626 (CP) (NCDRC) Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainants/respondents only raised allegations against the Bank without any proof of the same, far to speak of beyond any doubt. He also urged that the respondents herein only raised allegations against the Bank taking into account a criminal proceeding initiated against some of the bank employees against whom a charge sheet was filed subsequently. On perusal of the materials on record we find substance in the argument and we are unable to accept that the Ld. Trial Forum was justified in passing a decree in favour of the complainants particularly when the cause of action as averred in the petition of complaint was hit by section 24A(1) of the CP Act, 1986.

          Hence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by Ld. Trial Forum is set aside. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal.