Date of Filing: 05/02/2020

Date of Judgment: 18/05/2022

Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Dey, Hon’ble Member

          The instant case arises when the complainants, Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee & Ors.  file a complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 ( Section 35 of the C.P Act, 2019) against  the  opposite party namely Susanta Kumar Basu, for deficiency in service.

          In short, the case of the complainants is that they  have two savings accounts in the Allahabad Bank, parnasree Palli Branch. One of these a/cs no. 20522280803 is a joint account and another account no. 20522285405 is in the name of the complainant no.2. They also have a fixed deposit, a three year MIP of Rs. 4,00,000/-. They took a loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- against this F.D. The EMIs for this loan , according to the complaint , would be debited from their joint account on account of principal repayment and interest from the interest of the said MIP accrued monthly. On 01.12.2019 they found two amounts of Rs.5000/- and Rs. 6000/- were deducted from their joint account and these amounts went to a fictitious account bearing no. 50487993614. The same incident happened on 31.01.2020. He tried to convey their grievance to the O.P in writing but failed. Finding no other way to resolve their grievance they approached this Commission with prayer to pay principal amount , harassment money, litigation cost and interest as this Commission might think fit.

          The complainants with the complaint have filed sanctioned letter, copy of extract of the passbook of 3 different accounts including FD, a power of attorney executed by complainant no.2 in favour of complainant no.1, letter written to the Sr. Manager of the Bank namely Allahabad Bank on 17.1.2020 and also the statement of account no. 50487993614.

          On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice and repeated opportunities given, no step was taken by the O.P and thus case was directed to be proceeded exparte.

          During the course of the trial complainants filed affidavit-in-chief and ultimately argument has been heard.

          So, the only point requires determination is whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

          It may be pertinent to point out that the present complaint has been filed by the complainants against the Senior Manager named therein and not against the bank. The case as agitated in the complaint reveals that the complainants have grievances and  claim against the bank and thus Bank was a necessary party. But the Bank has not been made a party and only Sr. Manager of Allahabad Bank has been made as O.P in this case.

          However, since this is a settled principle of law that no case will fail on the ground of defect of party and the complainants have to be given an opportunity to rectify the defect by adding necessary party, the opportunity will be given if it is found that the complainants have been able to establish their case on merits.

           Complainants have claimed that due to urgency they took a loan against their FD being account no. 40487450408 of Rs. 4 lac. They had taken loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- on condition that loan EMI was payable from the joint savings bank being account no. 20522280803. However, complainants noticed that the bank deducted Rs.5000/-  from 1.8.2019 in each month and on 1.12.2019 deducted Rs.5000/- and Rs. 6000/- . But the amounts were entered in a fictitious account being no. 50487993614. The complainants have filed loan sanctioned letter issued by the Bank, wherefrom it appears that Bank sanctioned loan of enhanced limit of Rs. 2,70,000/- and the nature of the facility was overdraft against own MIP. It is categorically mentioned in the said loan sanctioned letter that the MIP interest would be credited in overdraft loan account directly till the liquidation of the loan. Security towards the payment of the said loan was pledged of MIP Account no. 40487450408 for Rs. 4 lac which appears to be the fixed deposit account in the joint name of the complainants.

          So, the said letter itself indicates that the interest was to be credited in the O.D loan i.e overdraft loan account. According to the complainants, the said account is a fictitious account . But from the statement of account filed by the complainants themselves with regard to the said account being no. 50487993614 indicates that the same stands in the name of the complainant no.2 with the Indian Bank which is merged with Allahabad Bank. The interest has also been reflected in the said statement of account as well as the amounts credited therein. The complainants have not filed any documents showing that the said account is a fictitious account and it does not actually exist. Since, there is a categorical reflection in the sanctioned letter itself that the interest will be credited in the overdraft loan account , which appears to be the said account which according to the complainant is fictitious , the claim of the complainants that they have not been paid the interest as stated in the said sanctioned letter cannot be accepted. It is nowhere stated by the complainants that they have tried to operate the said O.D account but failed. So in absence of any specific evidence before this Commission, the claim of the complainants that O.Ps credited the interest as stated in the sanctioned letter in a fictitious account and thus deficient in rendering services could not be established and for the said reason the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

                 ORDERED

That CC/37/2020 is dismissed exparte.