In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/146/2017.
Date of filing: 13/07/2017. Date of Final Order: 04/10/2024.
- Smt. Moumita De,
w/o Sri Sandip De
- Sri Sandip De,
s/o Late Santosh Kumar De,
residing at Lalit Bhavan, Babuganj, P.S Chinsurah,
P.O. and District Hooghly, Pin: 712103.
both are presently residing at
c/o Sri Shyamaprasad Banerjee,
Dhopapara Lane, Hooghly Ghat, P.S. Chinsurah,
P.O. and District Hooghly, Pin: 712103.…..complainants
The Branch Manager,
Bank of India Chinsurah Branch,
Akhanbarar, P.O. & P.S. Chinsurah,
District-Hooghly. Pin: 712101.……..Opposite Party
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member, Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only) against two monthly income certificates. The account numbers of the said certificates are 428943710001484 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) on 16.04.2012 and 428943710001968 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.05.2013 respectively. The opposite party also issued the certificates in respect of the said monthly income certificate and the complainants are also receiving the interest quarterly against deposits of the said two monthly income certificates.
That however, on 16.04.2012, the complainants prayed for Over Draft (O/D) against the deposit of the said two certificates and the opposite party was pleased to sanction the O/D for a sum of Rs. 2,97,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety seven thousand only) against deposit of certificate of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) and another for Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) against deposit of certificate of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only).
That however, from the statement of accounts issued by the opposite party being O/D account no. 428927110000029, the complainant came to know that on 27.11.2015 the opposite party debited a sum of Rs. 66,653/- (Rupees sixty six thousand six hundred fifty three only) from the O/D account suddenly without informing the complainant.
That debiting such a huge amount without any clarification and/or informing the complainant prior to such illegal debit is not at all tenable according to the Banking Rules and Regulations.
That the complainant no.1 in this regard also sent a representation on 08.02.2016 to the opposite party stating their grievance and seeking clarification for debiting and deducting of such huge amount but the opposite party have not yet respond to the representation dated 08.02.2016 of the complainants.
That moreover, the O/D account of the complainants is based on two fixed deposits as stated earlier. The interest that the opposite party is charging against the said O/D was 11.25% instead of 10.75%.
That actually there would be two separate O/D accounts for two separate fixed deposits as the rate of interest of the fixed deposits are different but erroneously without informing the complainants the opposite party have opened a single O/D account against two fixed deposits and the opposite party have charged the highest interest amount @ 11.25% rather it would be wise if the opposite party would charge the specific interest stipulated of the specific fixed deposits. However, the complainants are in absolute dark regarding such huge deduction of Rs. 66,653/- (Rupees sixty six thousand six hundred fifty three only) on 27.11.2015 and the reason is best known to the opposite party about such sudden and unreasonable deduction. The complainants also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) on 14.01.2016 with the said O/D account but there was no clarification about such deposits or about the money so credited in the said O/D account.
That it has become nightmare for charging such huge interest without any basis and for which the complainants were compelled to close the O/D account being no. 428927110000029 on 06.04.2016 for which they suffered a huge business loss but there was no other alternative but to close the O/D account after paying the balance amount.
That the complainants being a bonafide customer having O/D accounts and Savings Accounts lying with the opposite party has repeatedly asked for such clarification as stated above but the opposite party have failed to give any clarification in this behalf.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to furnish the proper statement of account since the initiation of the O/D account bearing no. 428927110000029 in the name of complainants and also give detailed clarification of amount which has been debited and deducted on 27.11.2015 for a sum of Rs. 66,653/- (Rupees sixty six thousand six hundred fifty three only) without informing the complainants and also about the amount Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) deposited on 14.01.2016 by the complainants with the said O/D account and to pay a sum of Rs. Rs. 300000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) to the complainants as compensation for suffering huge loss in their business and mental pain and agony and for harassment suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 30000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) for litigation cost to the complainants.
Defense Case:- The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that as the O/D claim from the same category of account, two Fixed deposit accounts and there is no bar to issue one O/D against the two accounts and according to loan documents rate of interest is floating and time to time may be changed, which also executed by the complainant and as the rate of interest is floating as per loan documents and as per RBI rules Bank has authority to deduct the interest as per loan documents and it may be true the O/D accounts for two separate fixed deposit and deduction of amount is matters of record but deposit of amount of Rs,1,50,000/- on 14.1.2016 this O.P. submits it is the intention of the customer to deposit any amount for reduce the interest for his personal benefit and it may be true that by one letter the complainant closed the accounts intentionally. And O.P. has no manner to say regarding closure of account of the customer and the Complainant intentionally motivatedly, after closing the account sent the notice to create illegal claim which has no merit at all. So, the complaint case should be liable to be rejected.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainants filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.
The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocates of the complainants and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Babuganj, Chinsurah, Hooghly and O.P has it’s office at Chinsurah, Hooghly which are lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 20 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very important and according to the provision of Section 24A complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. It is the settled principle of law that failure of the bank authority to comply with the contractual obligation to release claim amount in deficiency in service. This legal principle has been laid down by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and it is reported in 2022 (2) CPR 13 (Del).
All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.
On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that complainants had two investment certificates amounting to Rs.650000/- and against the said certificates the complainants had taken overdrafts amounting to Rs.297000/- and 270000/- it is also revealed that the OP bank authority debited a sum of Rs.66,653/- on 27.11.2015 without intimating the complainant from the said two certificates. As per case of the complainant side such deduction of huge amount of Rs.66653/- without intimating the complainants is highly illegal and it is against the rules of RBI but over this issue the bank authority has adopted the defence alibi that as per RBI rules and as the interest against the said overdraft was floating interest the bank authority had deducted the said amount of Rs.66653/- as interest. It is also reflected from evidence on record that the complainant had deposited Rs.150000/- on 14.1.2016 which has been admitted by the bank authority. Now the question is whether the act of deduction of huge amount of Rs.66653/- without intimating the complainants is valid in the eye of law or not. In this regard it is important to note that the deduction of such amount is a contractual obligation and so the bank authority is duty bound to inform complainants about such type of deduction from the above noted two certificates is a clear instance of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank authority. When there is a contractual obligation, the Op bank authority cannot adopt unilateral decision in the matter of deduction of any amount from the deposit of the complainants. This factor is also reflecting that there is a fault, negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank authority and for that reason the complainant is entitled to get relief in respect of points of consideration no.4 & 5 which have been adopted in this case.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has proved her case in respect of all the points of consideration adopted in this case and for that reason the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case in respect of all the points of consideration.
In the result it is accordingly
Ordered
that the complaint case being no. 146 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part.
It is held that the complainant is entitled to get a direction upon the OP to furnish proper statement of account initiation of the overdraft amount in the name of the complainants and also entitled to get clarification in respect of the amount which has been debited and deducted on 27.11.2015 without intimating the complainants and also about the amount of Rs.150000/- which is deposited by the complainants on 14.1.2016 in respect of the said overdraft amount and the OP bank authority is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.100000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.
OP bank authority is directed to carry out the aforesaid direction within 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment. Otherwise complainants are given liberty to execute this award as per law.
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 and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
