30.11.2015

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          The instant appeal under Section 15 of the C. P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/O.P. challenging the impugned judgment and order of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat in CC Case No. 81(S)/2012, allowing the complaint with the directions upon the Appellant/O.P. Bank as under:-

          “OP bank is directed to credit the term deposit in the name of Sourav Saha against Bank A/C No. 2654 in the name of Bikas Chandra Saha at once without any fail and within seven days from the date of receipt of the order along with the Term Deposit as directed in the body of the order/judgment without any further harassment.

          Further OP shall have to pay interest at the rate of 8% P.A. on the said amount since the date of refusal to credit the amount in the above account of the Complainant.

          OP bank shall positively comply the order of this Forum within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which for disobeyance of Forum/s order daily a sum of Rs.100/- will be assessed as levied as penalty till full satisfaction of this judgment and order”.

          The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that one Sri Sourav Saha, son of Late Hiralal Saha purchased one “Term Deposit Receipt” (TDR) amounting to Rs.41,076/- for a period of 36 months from the Appellant/O.P. Bank.  The said Sourva Saha, on maturity of the said TDR, applied to the Appellant/O.P. Bank to transfer the matured value to the tune of Rs.54,042/- to the Savings Bank A/c No. 2654 being maintained in the said Bank in the name of one Bikash Chandra Saha stated to be alias Sourav Saha, son of Late Hiralal Saha in the complaint petition. 

          The Appellant/O.P. Bank refused to comply with the instructions of Sri Sourav Saha, the Respondent/Complainant as the name of the certificate holder and the name of the holder of the Savings Bank A/c, where the matured value of the TDR was instructed to be transferred, were not the same.  Repeated requests for the same transfer of fund from the Respondent/Complainant underwent the same fate from the Appellant/O.P. Bank.  The Respondent/Complainant, therefore, being aggrieved, filed before the Ld. District Forum the complaint petition which the impugned order relates to.

          Heard Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. Bank  who submitted that Sourav Saha, the owner of the TDR wanted the matured value to be transferred to the account of one Bikash Chandra Saha, claiming himself and the said Bikash Chandra Saha being one and the same person.  The request being contradictory to the banking norms, the Appellant/O.P. Bank has rightly dishonoured the claim.  The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. Bank went on to submit that the Ld. District Forum passed the order exparte, but, in fact, the Appellant/O.P. Bank did not receive any notice of hearing.  The Ld. District Forum passed the order allowing the complaint when there was no confirmatory document justifying the claim of the Respondent/Complainant that Sourav Saha and Bikash Chandra Saha are one and the same person.  The Ld. Advocate contended the Ld. District Forum passed the order contradictory to the RBI guidelines and hence not acceptable and requested for setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 

          There was none to represent the Respondent/Complainant.

          Perused the papers on record.  It appears that the Ld. District Forum passed the directions upon the Appellant/O.P. Bank on exparte hearing and in absence of any legally accepted document substantiating the fact that Sourav Saha and Bikash Chandra Saha, son of Late Hiralal Saha, the Respondent/Complainant are one and the same person.

Such being the position, we find it expedient in the interest of justice to send back the case on remand before the Ld. District Forum for a fresh decision after evidence is adduced by both sides. 

The appeal is allowed.  We set aside the impugned judgment.  The case is sent back on remand before the Ld. District Forum for a fresh decision.  Ld. District Forum will allow the Appellant/O.P. to file written version and thereafter to decide the case on merit according to law after evidence is adduced by both sides.  Both parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 16.12.2015.