Final Order/Judgment

This appeal referred to the order No. 11 dated 25/10/2017, passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in connection with Consumer Case no. 11/S/2017. Here in this case, the appellants are Uttar Banga Ketriya Gramin Bank of Rathkhola Branch and the Regional Manager and General Manager of the said bank. The respondent Sri Rabindranath Sarkar who lodged the Consumer Complaint case no. 11/S/2017 against the appellants before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri and the case was heard ex-perte and a decree and award was passed by Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri ex-perte against the appellants and being aggrieved with the said order, this appeal follows. The Consumer Case lodged by the respondent Sri Rabindranath Sarkar in a nut shell is that who had a savings account in the appellant no. 1 Branch at Siliguri where he invested rupees  one lakh on 18/09/2010 for 60 months and the appellant’s bank issued two separate deposit certificate of rupees 50,000 each. After the maturity dated 11/9/2015, the respondent submitted the original investment certificates on 23/09/2015 for  encashment and he was asked to come within 3 days for encashment. After 3 days, when the complainant came to the appellant no. 1 bank to receive the maturity value then he was surprised to know that he was entitled to maturity amount of one certificate that is rupees 72,497. Thereafter the complainant several times has visited the Opposite Parties for encashment of second certificate. The appellants had refused to hand over the maturity value of the second investment certificate and since then he has sent notices repeatedly asking them to release the fund of second investment certificate and at last he came to the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievances against the appellant bank with prayer for compensation along with cost of litigation and other claims. The appellants recorded their appearance before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri but could not submit the written version within the statutory period and as a result the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri was compelled to hear the case ex-perte against the appellants no. 1 to 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, this appeal follows on the ground that the appellant could not get proper opportunity to proceed with the complaint case, though the complainant/respondent by suppressing some material facts procured the award from the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri which is illegal, unethical and ultra vires to the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The positive case of appeal is that the complainant/ respondent availed a credit certificate from the appellant Bank for the construction of building. He pledged 6 number of Kishan Vikas Patra  rupees 10,000 each and aggregating to some of rupees 60,000 and the maturity value of the said Kishan Vikash Patra was encashed by the appellants, in Dinhata Post Office on 31/3/2010 and rupees 10,000 amount credited to the loan amount of the respondent/complainant on 6/4/2010 and on the request of the respondent/complainant, the rest  rupees 50,000 of the Kishan Vikas patra maturity value was invested by the Complainant/respondent in the appellant bank and only one certificate bearing no. RIDC-CP 01A-149720 dated 18/9/2010 was handed over to the complainant/respondent but through mistake by the Bank Officials, another certificate of the same no. was also handed over to the complainant/respondent. The case of the appellant is further that the complainant/respondent actually invested only rupees 50,000 and instead of one certificate, two certificates were wrongly issued bearing the same  serial numbers and taking the error as opportunity the complainant/respondent claims beyond the actual limit of his maturity value. The appellant further states that while the complainant/respondent claim the maturity value of the second certificate, the bank duly informed  that through mistake the second certificate was issued and the complainant/respondent was not entitled for encashment of the wrong investment certificate. The appellant’s  further case is that, they could not get the opportunity to highlight this matter before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and as such they had no liability to make payment of wrongly issued second certificate and the appellant who want to get an opportunity before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri for a fresh order after hearing  both sides. The respondent after receiving the notice appeared before the Commission through Ld. Advocate and appeal was heard on merit after the necessary amendment of the memo of appeal.

Decisions with reasons

Admitted position is that the respondent/complainant a bona fide customer of the appellant bank who had a saving account in the Bank and he secured a loan for his construction of his house and deposited the Kishan Vikas Patra amounting to rupees 60,000. It is also admitted that out of said  rupees 60,000, bank credited rupees 10,000 to the loan account of the loanee that is the complainant/respondent and rest amount was deposited to the appellant bank. The certificates no. RIDC-CP 01A-149720 dated 18/09/2015 bearing serial no. RIDC/8982 (27/1293) and certificate no. RIDC-CP O1A-173849 bearing serial no. RIDC/8982(27/1293) dated 18/9/2018 clearly speaks that if two investments of rupees 50,000 each was actually deposited then  serial numbers of the two certificates could not be the same.

Therefore, certainly there was some wrong doing/mistake on the part of the bank authority and this Bank is a Rural bank run by State government deals with the monetary transactions for the benefit of rural people within the area . This is public money and Bank could not be penalised for issuing a wrong certificate without actual investment and this is a matter whether the contention of the appellants are genuine or not to be determined at first because public money is involved here.

Therefore, in our view, the appellant Bank should get a opportunity of being heard before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and thereafter a proper decision in this respect  should come out. So the Commission deems it fit to interfere with the order of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri is requested to hear the case afresh of both sides of this case and dispose of the consumer complaint on merit. Hence it is,

ordered

                The appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without cost. The impugned order no. 11 dated 25/10/2017 is hereby set aside. The parties are asked to appear before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri on 19/12/2018

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri by Email and by special messenger.

The copy of this order be supplied parties free of cost.

The interim order of stay is hereby recalled.