The brief facts  as enumerated in the complaint petition is that complainant had a business of engineering works at 85, G.T. Road, P.O. & P.S.- Rishra, Dist.- Hooghly, under the name and style Mech-Manu Engineering Works. The complainant was maintaining an overdraft account for his proprietary business before the OP No. 1 for a limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- at the rate of 13% and against such credit facility OP No. 1 obtained some securities of movable and immovable properties from this complainant i.e.  land and building in the name of this complainant now worth more than 25,00,000/-, Original NSC of Rs.10000/- KVP of Rs.33000/-, LICI policy for a sum assured Rs.250,000/-. That on 16.03.2010 the OP No.1 was pleased to enhance the over draft limit from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.600,000/- on retaking the securities from this complainant. Due to bad market condition the business of the complainant collapsed in the year 2012 in spite of that the complainant continuing to pay the loan amount regularly. That on 26.06.2012 this complainant requested the OP No.1 & 2 to convert the O/D facility to mortgage scheme which they acknowledged but did not make any reply. Further on 06.01.2014 this complainant through his Ld. Lawyer sent a letter to the OP No.1 requesting them to settle the net balance amount of the O/D account and to fix the installment amount. This time the OP did not reply. When he contacted the OP No.1 he behaved rudely and did not inform this complainant how the movable securities have been dealt with by it. The complainant having no alternative filed an application on 13.4.2015, U/S- 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the OP No.1 requesting him to inform this complainant some specific information’s mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of that application. The OP No.1 replied the complainant which is false, fabricated, incomplete and baseless.  After receiving the letter dated 24.4.2015 from the OP No.1 this complainant filed an application U/S -6 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the OP No.3 on 26.4.2015 to know the fate of his securities mentioned in the schedule of the said application. The OP No.3 informed this complainant by his letter dated 21.5.2015 that those securities have been encashed and subsequently payment has been made through cheque to the OP No.1. The OP No.1 has also encashed the security mentioned in the ‘C schedule by cheque No.0138312 datéd15.2.2009 but did not credit in the account of the complainant. This complainant came to know that the then manager of OP No.1 bank in collusion with some other person has misappropriated those valuable securities and the present OP No.1 has been actively suppressing all such facts at the connivance with the then manager and their associates taking the chance of simplicity of this complainant. That on 14.05.2015 OP No.1 further send this complainant a letter dated 14.05.2015 in reply against this complainants application dated 13.04.2015 and objection dated 5.5.2014 on some false, fabricated, baseless and misleading facts knowing fully well that those facts are not true.  The OP No.1 came to the house of the complainant alongwith two bouncers and took some photographs in absence of the complainant and threatened the complainant that he will sell the house in auction and he will teach a lesson to this complainant if try to fight with the Manager and also threatened to implicate the complainant in a criminal case. Then the complainant filed a strong objection hearing the threatening of auction on 14.5.2015 through post. Thereafter the complainant filed an appeal U/S-19 of RTI Act, 2005 before Regional Manager Central Bank of India on the grounds of non furnishing of information by the OP No.1 in terms of the application U/S-6 of the RTI Act dated13.3.2015. The OP No.1 also charged some extra and illegal amounts amounting to Rs.6470/- from this complainant.  The complainant further begs to submit that the OP No.1 did not encash most of the securities in time and also did not credited the encashed amount to complainant’s account in time.  The complainants averred that the OP No.1 realized a sum of Rs.47,987/- by encashing the securities mentioned in the  ‘E’ schedule but did not credit the same amount to the account of the complainant inspite of repeated requests. The complainant compelled to purchase a term deposit from the OP No.1 of like amount at a lesser rate of interest and the OP No.1 kept the said fixed deposit in his custody and obtained signatures of this complainant coercively on some papers.  The OP No.1 also intentionally converted the matured amount of ‘E’ schedule securities into security under its control and custody after compelling this complainant to handover the matured amount to the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 was negligent to reply the letter of the complainant and the letter of his advocate. The acts, deeds and omissions of the OP No.1 amounts to deficiency of service as well as Unfair Trade Practice for which this complainant has suffered economic loss caused by improper and illegal dealings by the OP No.1 for which he is under liability to repay with interest @18% p.a. This complainant filed the instant complainant before this Forum praying for a direction upon the complainant to refund a sum of Rs.15157.20 for the matured ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule  securities to this complainant along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of maturity till refund or credit the same into the account of the complainant, refund of at least Rs.6470/- towards extra and illegal  charges by the OP No.1, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss caused by improper and illegal dealings by the OP No.1 and Rs. 50,000/- for damages for mental pain and physical suffering of this complainant and cost of proceeding.

 The OP No.1&2 filed written version denying the allegations leveled against them and averred that the OP strongly refute the very existence of firm named and style “Mech Manu Engineering at the cited place/ address. The complainant misguided the OP No.1 to open cash credit account being No. 1104862630 in the name of his stated ghostly firm at the referred address during the month of May, 2005 with an overall limit of Rs.350,000/- only complying with the terms and conditions as are associated there with, according to which he had to provide the necessary securities as outlined and stated in paras ensuring his credit worthiness via paying also for the necessary fixed incidental taxes and charges. They also admitted the enhancement of credit limit upto Rs. 5,00,000/- of the account of the complainant. The complaint petition is totally false, untrue biased and imaginary ones stand to be strongly denying and also averred that they are to abide by all the uniform rules and regulations having been fixed and laid down by the higher authorities both RBI and Finance Ministry of India Government. The process of conversion from one scheme to another scheme is normally totally discouraged by the bank authority. On the other hand a customer to avail of such type of facility (ies) he has to come down before the OP 1 and/or OP 2 Bank and fill up the necessary form etc. to put up his request in the nature complained of, such type of granting of preferential facility to get it approved by their regional Head Office of the area. OP 1 was much courteous one to verbally answered to the complainant’s queries and that of his son’s queries most politely on a number of occasions whenever requested and/or intimated. Before filing an R.T.I. query he has to follow the prescribed rules/procedures outlined therein which the complainant did not follow at all. It is also a blatant tie about OP 1 refusal to receive the complainant’s further letter compelling him to send it through Regd. Post. The OP 1 was compelled to encash the stated 6 Nos of securities on the basis of the lien subsisted there against, since the complainant defaulter in clear out the relevant dues against the relevant cash credit account. The relevant amount received were duly debited against the amount fell due for non payment there of as per the agreed terms of the loan agreement.

It is further stated that OP 1 never did visit to the complainant’s house as subsequently hatched out motivatedly in the said petition as such all the fabricated deliberations are the fertile brain child of the complainant lively manufactured by his biased bit motive. It is factual about encashment of the related securities by OP 1 and getting the amount of Rs. 47,987/- as these were assigned to the Bank under O.P.’s control as a lien towards the loan offered to the complainant. Such encashment of securities arose consequent upon the defaults in payments of the relevant dues payable by the complainant to the bank under OP 1 is control. In case of realization of banks dues the amounts so receivables by the assignee bank are adjusted against the indebtedness duly admitted also by the complainant and/or dues payable to the bank, the question of crediting the accounts does not lie at all. The complainant willingly invested in the term deposit of likewise amount Rs. 21,997/- for 1 year in adjustment of his existing likewise dues.

OP No. 3 filed Written Version denying the allegations as leveled against him and averred that the total maturity amount of 6NSCs of Rs. 11406/- only has been paid to the concerned bank authority vide Serampore Head Office Cheque No. 415393 dated 27.01.2007. He also averred that NCSs of 6 years were purchased by Pranab Kanti Rej and Swapna  Rej of 85  G.T. Road Town, P.O. Rishra, Dist.- Hooghly, PIN -712 248 from Rishra Post Office. The certificates bearing nos. (i) 44CC 995981-982 under registration no. 1238 of Denomination Rs. 1000/- each were purchased on 23.10.2000 and (ii) Certificates nos. 32CC 335032-35 under registration no. 12221 of denomination Rs. 1000/- each were purchased on 13.11.2000 respectively. The date of Maturity of the certificates as mentioned in the series of no. (1) were 23.10.2006 and series of no. (ii) were 13.11.06 respectively. Subsequently these certificates were pledged by the depositor as security in favour of the Central Bank of India, Rishra Br. As per SPM, Rishra letter dated 17.07.15 NSC Regd. No. 1238 for Rs. 2000/- dated 23.10.2000 has been transferred as security to Central Bank of India, Rishra Branch on 20.05.05 and NSC Regd. No. 12221 dt. 13.11.2000 for Rs. 4000/- has been transferred as security to the concerned Bank on 20.05.05. But the depositor failed to release the certificates from the concerned Bank authority. As a result the bank Authority has taken the maturity amount from Rishra post office on 29.01.07. In this connection it is to be mentioned here that as per the information as supplied to this office by the SPM Rishra S.O. dt. 18.05.15 against RTI reply of Pranab Kanti Rej dt. 28.04.15 all the abovenoted Certificates were encashed and subsequently payment was made.

Complainant files evidence on affidavit in which he stated that since May, 2005 he was maintaining an overdraft account from his proprietary business with the OP No. 1 for a limit of Rs. 350,000/- at the rate of 13 % interest and against such credit facility OP No. 1 obtained some securities of movable and immovable properties from him like land and building in his name worth more than Rs. 25,00,000/- which is situated at 85 G.T. Road, Town Post and P.S.- Rishra, Dist.- Hooghly. Original NSC of Rs. 10,000/- KVP of Rs. 33,000/- LIC policy for a sum assured Rs. 250,000/- etc. OP No. 1 also charged a sum of Rs. 2500/- towards processing fees including service tax. He also stated that he had been maintaining a current account with the OP No. 1 Bank since 1994 for the benefit of his business that on 16.03.2010 OP No. 1 was pleased to enhance the overdraft limit from Rs. 350,000/- to Rs. 600,000/- on retaking the existing securities from him. Since middle 2012 his business gradually collapsed. Inspite of that he has been repaying the loan amount to the OP No. 1. But the business has been gradually revived by financial support of some near relatives of him. That on 26.06.2012 he requested the OP No. 1 & 2 to convert the O/D facility to mortgage, which both the OPs have duly acknowledged on 29.06.2012. Both OP No. 1 & 2 in their usual negligence did not reply to him and behaved rudely with them in an unbecoming manner. OP No. 1 did not know him. The steps taken in respect of two letters dated 26.6.12 and 6.1.2014 and also did not inform him how the movable securities have been dealt with. The complainant getting no alternative filed an application dated 13.4.2015 under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the OP No. 1 requesting him to inform him for some specific information in Clause A(2)(e) of the application. The OP No. 1 on 25.07.2015 replied him against the application under Section 6 of RTI Act by its letter dated 24.4.2015 which was false, fabricated, incomplete and baseless in its content. So, he filed objection writing dated 05.5.2015 against such reply by OP No. 1 and further requested him to furnish information’s in terms of the application. After receiving letter dated 24.4.15 from OP No. 1 he filed an application under Section 6 of RTI Act to the OP No. 3 to know the fate of the securities. But the OP No.3 informed him that those 6 securities have been encashed and subsequently payment has been made through cheque being no. 415393 to the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 also encashed security mentioned in the ‘C’ schedule by cheque no. 0138312 dated 15.2.2009 but did not credit in his account. He came to know that the Branch Manager of OP No. 1 bank in collusion with some other persons has misappropriated those valuable securities and the present OP No. 1 has been actively suppressing all such facts at the connivance with the Manager and their Associates. He also assailed that OP No. 1 also came to his house on 14.5.15 at evening along with two bouncers and took some photographs of the house in his absence and threatened his son and wife that he will sell the house in auction and he will teach a lesson to the complainant and also threatened to implicate the complainant in a criminal case. The OP No. 1 also ordered to meet with him in the branch on the next day to apologize. After returning home he came to learn regarding threat and action taken by OP no. 1 and strongly objected by writing a letter. Then he wrote a letter to Regional Manager Central Bank of India for non furnishing of information by OP No. 1 under Section 19 of RTI Act. He also compelled to pay extra and illegal amount of Rs. 6470/- to OP No. 1. He also stated that OP No. 1 did not encash most of the securities in time and also did not credit the encashed amount in his account in time. OP No. 1 realized sum of Rs. 47987/- by encashing the securities mentioned in the ‘E’ Schedule. But did not credit the same amount to his account inspite of repeated requests. OP No. 1 compelled this complainant to purchase a term deposit from OP no. 1 of like amount at a lesser rate of interest than the rate of interest of O/D account and intentionally kept the said term deposit with the OP No. 1 and also obtained some signatures from him on coercion. The OP No.1 also intentionally converted the matured amount of ‘E’ schedule securities into security under its control and custody after compelling this complainant to handover the matured amount to the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 was negligent to reply the letter of the complainant and the letter of his advocate. The acts, deeds and omissions of the OP No.1 amounts to deficiency of service as well as Unfair Trade Practice for which this complainant has suffered economic loss caused by improper and illegal dealings by the OP No.1 for which he is under liability to repay with interest @18% p.a. This complainant filed the instant complainant before this Forum praying for a direction upon the complainant to refund a sum of Rs.15157.20 for the matured ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule  securities to this complainant along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of maturity till refund or credit the same into the account of the complainant, refund of at least Rs.6470/- towards extra and illegal  charges by the OP No.1, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss caused by improper and illegal dealings by the OP No.1 and Rs. 50,000/- for damages for mental pain and physical suffering of this complainant and cost of proceeding.

 Complainant has filed the documents stated below in support his complaint and claim :-

Account statement of the O/D A/c No. 1104862630, ii) O/D loan agreement, iii) Document of enhancement of O/D Limit, iv) Request letter from the complainant to OP No. 1 & 2, v) Ld. Lawyer Amit Kr. Agarwala’s letter to the OP No. 1, vi) Application u/s 6 of the RTI Act filed by the complainant to the OP No. 1, vii) Reply from the OP No. 1 to the complainant, viii) Objection filed by the complainant against the reply dated 25.04.2015, ix) Application u/s 6 of the RTI Act filed by the complainant to OP No. 3, x) Letter from Sr. Suptd. of Post Offices, South Hooghly Divn. to the complainant, xi) Letter from OP No. 1 to the complainant, xii) Objection filed by the complainant to OP No. 1, xiii) Appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act filed by complainant to Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, xiv) Letter from OP No. 1 to complainant, xv) Letter from Ld. Lawyer Mr. K.N. Mondal to complainant, xvi) Calculation of extra amount.

 Complainant and OP No.3 filed affidavit in chief and both sides filed written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during passing of final order.

The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.

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

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Sri Pranab Kanti Rej is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

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

3).Whether the OPs 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 Sri Pranab Kanti Rej is a ‘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. As the complainant being the customer of the OP bank maintaining account before the OP-1 bank and there were a few investments before the OP No. 3 so they being the service provider cannot deny the service of this complainant.  

(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 complaint valued 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 was maintaining an overdraft accounts for his proprietary business before the OP No. 1 for a limit of Rs. 350,000/- at the rate of 13% and against such credit facility, OP No. 1 obtained some securities of movable and immovable properties from this complainant i.e.  land and building in the name of this complainant now worth more than 25,00,000/-, original NSC of Rs.10,000/- KVP of Rs.33,000/-, LICI policies for a sum assured Rs.250,000/-. That on 16.03.2010 the OP No.1 was pleased to enhance the over draft limit from Rs.350,000/- to Rs.600,000/- on retaking the securities from this complainant. As the business of the complainant was not running very so he requested the OP No.1 & 2 to convert the O/D facility to mortgage scheme but they did not make any reply. Further on 06.01.2014 this complainant through his Ld. Lawyer sent a letter to the OP No.1 requesting them to settle the net balance amount of the O/D account and to fix the installment amount. The complainant having no alternative filed an application on 13.4.2015, U/S- 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the OP No.1 requesting him to inform this complainant some specific information’s mentioned in clause (a) to (e) of that application. After receiving the letter dated 24.4.2015 from the OP No.1 this complainant filed an application U/S -6 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the OP No.3 on 26.4.2015 to know the fate of his securities mentioned in the schedule of the said application. The OP No.3 informed this complainant by his letter dated 21.5.2015 that those securities have been encashed and subsequently payment has been made through cheque to the OP No.1. The OP No.1 has also encashed the security mentioned in the ‘C’ schedule by cheque No.0138312 dated15.2.2009 but did not credit in the account of the complainant. This complainant came to know that the then manager of OP No.1 bank in collusion with some other persons has misappropriated those valuable securities and the present OP No.1 has been actively suppressing all such facts at the connivance with the then manager and their associates taking the chance of simplicity of this complainant. That on 14.05.2015 OP No.1 further send this complainant a letter dated 14.05.2015 in reply against the application of the complainant, dated 13.04.2015 and objection dated 5.5.2014 but the reply could not satisfy the complainant. The OP No.1 came to the house of the complainant along with two bouncers and took some photographs in absence of the complainant and threatened the complainant that they will sell the house in auction and will teach a lesson to this complainant if try to fight with the Manager and also threatened to implicate the complainant in a criminal case. Then the complainant filed a strong objection hearing the threatening of auction on 14.5.2015 through post. Thereafter the complainant filed an appeal U/S-19 of RTI Act, 2005 before Regional Manager, Central Bank of India on the grounds of non furnishing of information by the OP No.1 in terms of the application U/S-6 of the RTI Act dated 13.3.2015. The OP No.1 also charged some extra and illegal amounts amounting to Rs.6470/- from this complainant.  The complainant further begs to submit that the OP No.1 did not encash most of the securities in time and also did not credit the encashed amount to complainant’s account in time. The complainants averred that the OP No.1 realized a sum of Rs.47,987/- by encashing the securities mentioned in the  ‘E’ schedule but did not credit the same amount to the account of the complainant inspite of repeated requests. The complainant compelled to purchase a term deposit from the OP No.1 of like amount at a lesser rate of interest and the OP No.1 kept the said fixed deposit in his custody and obtained signatures of this complainant coercively on some papers.  The OP No.1 also intentionally converted the matured amount of ‘E’ schedule securities into security under its control and custody after compelling this complainant to handover the matured amount to the OP No.1. 

The OP No.1&2 in his written argument averred that complainant is a borrower of the bank having account of O/D facility and he also admitted that he is defaulter borrower did not pay the interest regularly. The complainant at the time of opening his loan account & obtain the O/D facilities have kept the securities for keeping the bank in assured assets, so he made an indemnity bond. In that bond he declared that the securities kept in the bank may be adjusted when the loan will be NPA or defaulter. The officials of the OP bank requested the complainant and informed that he failed to pay interest regularly but the complainant paid no heed.  The OP No.1&2 also averred that bank run by the rules and regulations of RBI guidelines. The complainant on his own whim by sending letter wanted to covert the loan from O/D facility to mortgage facility can least be possibility for those OP’s and the rate of interest and condition are differ from O/D to mortgage.  The OP bank also assailed that he without the consent of the complainant encashed 6 nos of NSC’s mentioned in the B schedule amounting to Rs.21,997/- was withdrawn from the OPs and kept in the termed deposit and may be used as security if the account default. But the OP never adjusted or realized the same in the default account but kept in the form of term deposit. The complainant by its letter dated 20.6.2017 willingly declare to adjust all the securities against his O/D account.

     OP No. 3 files written argument in which he asserted that 6 NSCs were purchased by the complainant and Swapna Rej from Rishra Post Office. The date of maturity were 23.10.06 and 13.11.06. These certificates were placed by the depositors i.e. the complainant and Swapna Rej as security in favour of Central Bank of India, Rishra Branch. As per letter dated 17.07.15 of SPM Rishra it appears that NSC being No. 12138 for Rs. 2000/- dated 23.10.2000 and NSC registration no. 12221 dated 13.11.2000 for Rs. 4000/- were transferred as security to the concerned bank on 20.05.2005 as the depositors failed to release the certificates from the concerned bank, the bank authority has taken the maturity amount from Rishra Post Office on 29.01.2007. The payment was made to one Pradip Bhattacharya whom the Manager of Central Bank of India had authorised to receive payment on behalf of the bank and payment was made through Serampore Head Office vide cheque no. 415393 dated 27.01.2007.

So, from the complaint petition and the documents in the record it appears that complainant maintaining an OD account before OP Bank and the complainant has been paying the interest regularly. That in the year 2012 the business of the complainant suffered a set back as a result he could not pay the interest regularly at that time. But he tried his best to make payment in the said account. The statement of accounts of the complainant from 30.04.2011 to 07.03.2012 it appears that a sum of Rs.82,476/- was debited as interest, processing charge, inspection charge etc. and a sum of Rs. 51,000/- credited by the complainant as a result the balance came to Rs.5,57,514/-. Another statement of account for the period 25.02.12 to 09.11.12 it appears that a sum of Rs. 80,294/- was debited as transfer, service tax, interest and others and a sum of Rs. 65,500/- credited in the said account as a result balance came to 576,700/-. Another statement of account dated 16.04.2013 for the period 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 Rs. 65,617/- was debited as interest, ledger folio charge, service tax, processing charge, document charges and a sum of Rs.142,061/- credited as a result balance converted to Rs. 506,256/-, statement of account for the period 01.04.2013 to 13.08.2014 transpires that a sum of Rs. 102,129/- debited and Rs. 129,230/- was credited as a result balance came to Rs.479,155/-. Similarly, statement of account for the period 02.08.2014 to 31.03.2015 reflects that Rs. 47724.42 debited and Rs. 54,816.72/- credited. So the balance reduces to Rs. 472,063/-. The statement of account for the period from 01.10.2015 to 28.06.2018 that a sum of Rs.34,131/- debited and credited Rs. 217,750/- upto 30.06.2015, Rs.37,167/- debited and credited Rs.67,500/- upto 29.02.2016, sum of Rs. 42256/- debited and credited Rs.53,400/- upto 30.04.2017, a sum of Rs.19,732/- debited and Rs.2,09,410/- credited upto 31.01.2018 and lastly Rs.768/- debited and credited a sum of Rs.15,000/- as a result balance amount reduces to Rs. 49,419/- as on 07.07.2018. So it is crystal clear that the intention of the complainant is to pay the dues of the OP No.1. And the OP No.1 collected a huge amount from this complainant in different components.  But the way in which the complainant is treated by the OP No.1 is very harassing. The complainant several times wanted to get information regarding the adjustments of the investments proceed in his O/D account, from the OP No.1 and its higher authority but the OP remained silent or avoided to make any reply at the utterance of the complainant/customer.

 From the letter dated 24.04.2015 of the OP No.1 to this complainant, it appears that the OP No.1 stated in reference to their conversations many times in their office regarding the matter and they cleared that the loan granted to this complainant is for business purpose and presently he had no business at the place and he is unable to serve even the interest of the loan so changing the over draft loan to term loan is not possible because of his repayment capacity. And the OP No.1 also made it clear that the securities can be adjusted as recovery i.e. only when his loan account goes bad. The OP No.1 also admitted that the liquid securities which had been adjusted to the over draft account of the complainant except the NSC certificates for which they are continuously in the link with the post office G.T. Road, Rishra but still they do not get any reply.

Subsequently letter dated 14.5.2015 the OP No.1 informed this complainant that they have finally traced out the maturity value of the NSC which is already lying with the bank for which the bank is ready to bear the interest loss by the complainant.      

     The OP No.3 in reply at the RTI of the complainant stated that the certificates have been encashed and subsequently payment has been made to the authorized person of the Br. Manager, Central Bank of India, Rishra Branch through Serampore Head Post Office vide cheque No.415393 dated 27.01.2007. The acceptance of the NSC proceeds is not disputed as OP No1 admitted it and kept it in fixed deposit in his bank without the consent of the complainant which the complainant assailed.   

       But the OP No.1 after getting the NSC proceeds failed to credit in the loan account of the complainant as a result the complainant suffered a huge loss. The complainant by adducing evidence proved that the OP No.1 failed to adjust the investment proceeds of the complainant in his account in time as a consequence the complainant suffered loss at the behest of negligence on the part of the OP No.1.  Such act/ omission on the part of the OP No.1 tantamount to deficiency of service for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as this Forum deems fit and proper. It is pertinent to mention that the OP No.1 failed to give any satisfactory reply in respect of excess amount of Rs.6470/- taken in each year as charges. So the OP No.1 is under liability to refund those amounts including interest since the date of assessment for the year 2014 to 2015 or compensation.    

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 has abled to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt and the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay the ordered amount.

ORDER

       Hence, it is ordered that the Compliant Case No.95/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest /- against the OP No.1 with a litigation cost of Rs.8,000/- to be paid to this complainant.

        The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to return the securities in respect of deed of land and building and the policies which are yet to be matured to this complainant.  

       The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,406/- including interest since 29.1.2007 @ 15%  to this complainant till realization, within the time framed.

       The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to refund a sum of Rs.25,880/- (Rs.6470/-*4 yr) which has been collected by the OP No.1 as excess charge.  

       The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/-  for mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.

      Opposite party No 2&3 are exonerated from this proceeding. 

       All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of the order.

At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party No. 1   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,