Before:      Hon’ble President, Biswanath De.

                                             Hon’ble Member,Debi Sengupta

                                             Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra

FINAL ORDER     

       Samaresh Kumar Mitra,  Member:

       The case of the complainant is that he has savings account before the OP and the said account was operated upto 2000 AD and the address of the complainant was the business address of the complainant and his brother,since deceased there was several litigation in connection with the partnership busuness for severall years for which the said account was not operated as the pass book and the cheque book are lying in the locker of the business place. The complainant requested the banking authority to resume operation from some time passed and the complainant has been harassed and rushed from pillar to post of the banking authority for several times without any fruitful result. By a letter the branch manager acknowledged the complaint and advised the complainant to furnish correct account no of the savings account and PPF account. The complainant sought for information under section 6 of the RTI Act.,2005 regarding the statements of account as is permissible under the law for disclosing the present outstanding amount lying in the said account but also failed. The relation between the complainant and the OP is that of a customer and banker and the OP is to provide service and the complainant is thus a consumer under the OP and there is serious deficiency on the part of the OP which resulted in unfair trade practice. Due to harassment and misbehavior of the OP, its men and agents the complainant has suffered huge mental agony and the OP should be penalized by pecuniary compensation. awarded in favour of the complainant.

The sole OP appeared and by filling written version denied the allegations as leveled him and averred that OP is not concerned regarding the family dispute. He further assailed that in response to the letter of the complainant the answering OP enquired the account no from the complainant to sort out the status of the account but instead of that the complainant sought information through RTI Act. The complainant cannot claim unlimited right & demand as the subject matter is more than 15 years old so he prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.

The OP filed affidavit in chief and averred that he cannot state the date of operation of the account no 11141343208 at this stage since inception of CBS and the total system under the guidance of Apex System server at Belapur and all other points are replica of written version.  

Both sides filed written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.

              Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant and OP heard in full.

              From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

    1. Whether the Complainant  Ranalal Biswas ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

    2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

    3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards

        the Complainant?

    4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether

     the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based

   on the above perspectives.

 (1).Whether the Complainant Ranalal Biswas is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

       ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

             From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The complainant herein being the customer of the OP bank maintaining  savings account & PPF account before the OP, so being a consumer he is entitled to get service from the OP .

          (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

      Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainant prayed for a direction upon OPs to supply the information as asked for, to handover a copy of upto date statement of accounts, an order directing OP to return the amount with admissible interest, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  as compensation and order for cost of the proceeding other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

     (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service   towards the Complainant?         

         The case of the complainant is that he is a customer of the OP bank maintaining a savings bank account and a PPF account before the OP and the said accounts were not operated since 2000 AD as the pass books and the cheque books are laid in the office of a partnership business for a prolonged period due to dispute in between the partners. After elapsing near about 15 years the complainant by a letter sought information regarding the status of those accounts. After getting no satisfactory reply the complainant sought information in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In that invent the OP also failed to provide information then the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. The OP denied his deficiency of service and harassment of the complainant in his written version as well written notes of argument but no where the OP bank stated his bonafide regarding the suppliance of information. In his written argument he assailed that after elapse of 14 years petitioner recounted his account without memorizing the account number and purposefully blamed for noncompliance by the opposite party and after passage of 14 years a dynamic changes in the system in all sector was customarizes and banking sector also played a very important role and developed the system introducing CBS in the year 2003 and therefore manual banking become obsolete and it was very difficult for the OP to detect the account at once. It does not mean that the account and the balance amount will be removed from the bank account. It is the duty of the bank to inform the status of the accounts of the complainant. After filing the instant complaint petition the OP could not show his good gesture by supplying the information of the accounts but tried to evade his responsibility in the name of CBS system implemented since 2003. But it is not clear to us how the accounts of the complainant became disappeared from bank register. The nonfunctioning does not lead to waiving rights of the accountholder. It may be suspended for a prolonged period and may be operational at the option of the OP bank. The complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of the OP, so OP bank cannot evade his responsibility of supplying the status of the impugned accounts.

The Hon’ble State Commission, Himachal Pradesh in a case UCO Bank & Anr Vs Sh. Pushp Raj , (F.A.203/2016) dated 08.08.2016 held that bank is liable to compensate the respondent/customer as ‘No individual notice was sent to the respondent before freezing the account and that only a notice had been displayed on the notice board, for the information of all the customers to supply certain information and documents, so their accounts were brought on line, with the revised/ modified computerized system of the bank’. The appellant bank is deficient in proving service to its customer.  .

  Going by the foregoing discussion we are in the considered opinion to allow the prayer of the complainant as the complainant has proved his case by adducing cogent documents/evidence and therefore, the complainant succeed on contest. However considering the facts and circumstances there is order as to cost. With the abovementioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

  The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant proved his case beyond any doubt so he is entitled to get compensation as prayed for.

ORDER

    Hence, ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party with a litigation cost amounting to Rs.5000/-.

    The OP is directed to inform the present status of the accounts of the complainant and make the accounts in operation so that the complainant can make his transaction thereon and allow the complainant to withdraw the amount lying in the account including the interest thereon within 45 days from the date of this order.   

   The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation to this complainant for deficiency of service within 45 days from the date of this order.

  At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party  shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

                  Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.

          Dictated and corrected by me. Samaresh Kr. Mitra.