No. 6/28.06.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Ritobroto Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mrs. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Mrs. Mukhopadhyay files Vokalatnama today.

This appeal is by the Banker against the judgement and order dated 28.06.2010 passed in Complaint Case 20 of 2010 by the Forum below thereby allowing the complaint case with a direction upon the O.P. – Bank to pay Rs.30,000/- for their deficiency of service and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant in addition to payment of interest on the amount of Rs.20,000/- for the period from 26.03.2007 till 31.03.2010 at the prevailing rate applicable for fixed deposit by crediting the same in the account of the Complainant. 

The grievance of the Complainant in substance is that the said amount of Rs.20,000/- was shown as withdrawn by the Complainant on 26.03.2007.  Initially it was alleged by the Banker that the said amount was withdrawn by the Complainant by signing a withdrawal slip which, however, was found to had not been signed by the Complainant.  Accordingly in a meeting between the Banker and the Complainant held on 10.06.2009 it was admitted by the Banker that the disputed signature did not tally with the specimen signature of the Complainant.  Thereafter the Complainant was requested to contact the Branch Manager concerned of the Banker.  But it appears from the records of this case that the Complainant instead of contacting the Branch Manager had filed the above complaint case.  The Appellant – Banker has not assailed the direction as given in the above complaint case by directing it to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- for the period from 26.03.2007 till 31.03.2010, i.e. date on which the complaint was filed, at a prevailing rate applicable for the fixed deposit by crediting the same in the Account of the Complainant.  It has challenged the order whereby it has been directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant by way of compensation.

Regard being had to the fact that on the very first meeting between the Banker and the Complainant it was admitted by the Banker that there was debit of the aforesaid amount on the basis of a withdrawal slip which did not bear the signature of the Complainant and further since the Complainant did not attend to the particular Branch in which the said fixed deposit was made for rectification of the mistake that was committed by the Banker, in spite of repeated requests, we do not find any deliberate negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Banker.  Accordingly we modify the impugned order by deleting the direction for payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- for the alleged deficiency of service by the Banker.   However, all other portions of the impugned order shall remain as it is.  The appeal is thus disposed of.