This appeal is directed against the final order dated 29/05/2019 delivered by the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar in reference to CC no. 74 of 2018. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant being a holder of current account with the appellant bank, Central Bank of India, Coochbehar Bazar Bank which was subsequently converted to cash credit account vide no. 3091012848 for smooth running of his self employed business. At the time of conversion of the said current account into cash credit account two fixed deposit certificates to the tune of 75,000 and rupees 49,000 of his father Parimal Chandra Roy as collateral security was deposited for maintaining Cash Credit Account in the name of complainant Prabir Kishor Roy. The appellant bank on 13/4/2012 has liquidated the said fixed deposit certificate without prior consent of the complainant and his father. Though the complainant was not the defaulter of the Cash Credit Account. The said two fixed deposit certificates was liquidated before the maturity date and these two certificates were issued by Uttar Banga Khetriya Gramin Bank, Coochbehar.

The said cash certificates were liquidated at rupees 1,21,470 and 60,013 respectively, amounting to rupees total 1,81,483 but the said amount was credited into the current account of the father of the complainant to the tune of rupees 1,73,596. The rest amount rupees 7,887 was deducted from the total liquidated amount of rupees 1,81,483 which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op no. 1 bank and for that reason, this consumer complaint case was registered against the appellant bank as well against proforma op. Uttar Banga Khetriya Gramin Bank. The said consumer complaint case was registered on 19/9/2018 and the consumer complaint case was admitted on merit on 27/9/2018 and next date for S/R appearances and WV was fixed on 1/11/2018. On that day, the service of notice was returned after causing due service to the appellant. The appellant bank did not appear on that day before the Ld. Forum and at about 12/10 pm the Ld. Forum came to a view that the appellant bank was not willing to contest the case and for that reason, the appellant bank was debarred from filing WV.

Thereafter, the consumer complainant was asked to furnish the Evidence-in-chief and on the basis of it Ld. Forum has adjudicated the dispute by pronouncing the final order dated 29/5/2019 where appellant was asked to pay rupees 67,445 as compensation for deficiency of service and rupees 20,000 for mental pain and sufferings and rupees 5,000 for litigation cost as award in favour of the complainant.

Being aggrieved with this order, this appeal follows on the ground that Ld. Forum has violated the provisions of consumer protection Act for not giving the opportunity of filing the WV and debarred unlawfully the appellant from contesting the case on merit. The appeal was admitted on merit and the respondent Prabir Kishor Roy was served notice. PK Roy has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate. Appeal was heard, in presence of Ld. Advocate of the appellant as well as Ld. Advocate of P.K. Roy.

Decision with reasons,

During the course of hearing the argument of the appeal, Ld. Advocate Mr. B Shikdar of the appellant attacks the findings of the Ld. Forum on two scores. Firstly here the allegation against the appellant bank was to deficiency of service towards Parimal Chandra Dey whereas Parimal Dey was not the complainant of the original complaint case and the complainant PK Roy who happens to be the respondent of this appeal, has no locus standi to register the consumer complaint on behalf of his father while his father was there who had the opportunity to pursue the consumer compliant personally or through his agent. The second bone of contention of the appellant is that the notice of the case was received by appellant on 03/10/2018 and as per provisions of section 13(2)(a) of CP Act, 1986, the statutory entitlement was there on the part of the appellant bank to submit the WV till 18/11/2018 whereas on 1/11/2018 the Ld. Forum has debarred the appellant bank to contest the case by filing the WV. Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of argument mentioned that the Cash Credit Account is maintained by the complainant in his name and his father, as collateral security, has deposited the said two fixed deposit certificates whereas the appellant bank has liquidated the said two fixed deposit certificate before the maturity period without taking prior consent either from the complainant or from his father as said fixed deposit certificates stood in the name of his father Parimal Dey so complainant had the statutory privilege to lodge a consumer complainant personally as the fixed deposited Certificates was mortgaged to the bank as collateral security for the current account maintained by the consumer complainant.

The second argument of the Ld. Advocate is that the Ld. Forum has given the opportunity to the appellant Bank to file the WV and to appear on 1/11/2018 but on that day, None recorded the presence of the appellant bank before the Ld. Forum and for that reason, Ld. Forum has delivered the order to hear the case ex-parte and prevented the appellant bank in filing the WV and in that score Ld. Forum was rightly guided by the provision of Section 13(2)(a) of Cp Act 1986.

After hearing the valuable arguments canvassed before this commission, it appears to this Commission, that as per sec 13 when a consumer complaint is admitted by the Ld. Forum, the copy of the consumer complaint shall have to refer to OP with a direction to the OP to give his version of the case within 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum. So, while on 1/11/2011 none recorded the presence of appellate bank as OP before the Ld. Forum, the Ld. Forum had opportunity to extend the time of filing WV for another 15 days and if within the said extended period the OP again failed to file the WV then the Forum had the Opportunity to prevent the Ops-cum-appellant bank in filing the WV. Here the mandatory provision of Consumer Protection Act has been infringed and a statutory right could not availed by the appellant bank.

Secondly Parimal Chandra Roy has deposited the Two Fix deposit Certificates as collateral security for maintaining cash credit current account of complainant Prabir Kishor Dey and said two certificates was liquidated before the maturity period and the full amount of liquidation money was not credited in due time in the current account of Parimal Chandra Dey as alleged by the complainant Prabir Kishor Dey.  Here the deficiency of Service, relates to the fixed depositor Prabir Chandra Dey and he has the right cause of action to register a consumer complaint but said Parimal Dey was not joined in the consumer complaint and for that reason, the consumer complaint  appears to be defective one. So, in our view, the final order of Ld. Forum suffers from gross irregularity and liable to be interfered,

Thus, the appeal succeeds,

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the instant appeal is allowed on contest without any cost. That the final order of Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar dated 29/5/2019 in connection with CC no. 74 of 2018 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded bank to the Ld. Forum with request to give the Opportunity to the complainant to implead his father as co-complainant in this consumer complaint case and also to give opportunity to at least 15 days to the appellant bank to file WV to contest the case. The appellant/bank is hereby asked to file the WV before the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of order of this appeal, before the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar in CC case no. 74 of 2018 and the consumer complainant/respondent Prabir Kishor Dey is also entitled to implead his father Parimal Chandra Dey as co-complainant by adding him party to this instant consumer complaint no. 74 of 2018 with in 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of order.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the LD. DCDRF, Coochbehar and also to be supplied to the parties free of cost.