West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/57/2013

Ram Krishna Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

08 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.57/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 08/10/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Das. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. Sen. Advocate.

          

Ram Krishna Singh S/o-late Mohan Singh of Srikrishnapur, P.O. & P.S.-Kharagpur(T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

  The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Kharagpur Br., near Hanuman Mandir (Fatak  

  Bazar), Kharida,   P.O. & P.S.-Kharagpur(T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur ………Op.

   This is the case of the petitioner/complainant Sri Ramkrishna Singh, in short, is that he retired from his service on 31/7/2010 having his pension account no.0190101018116 maintained in the Op bank.  The petitioner availed of RD account for 30 months with effect from 16/8/2010 by making payment of monthly installment @ Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) only by giving instruction for deduction of the installments from his pension account.  After expiry of the period the petitioner came to know that on 6/3/2013 an amount of Rs.33,984/- (Thirty three thousand nine hundred eighty four) only  has been credited  in his pension account as maturity value of the said RD A/C.  Further he noticed that an extra amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) only was also debited from his pension account on 16/2/2013 as late fees.  when he approached before the Op/ Bank for knowing the reason as to why extra deduction was done.  In return, the petitioner received an act of miss-behavior from the OP In this connection, the petitioner admitted that he invested Rs.75,000/- (Seventy five thousand) only and the OP refunded  Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand) only and Rs.3,984/- (Three thousand nine hundred eighty four) only as interest.  It is alleged by the complainant that the Op Bank illegally withheld rest invested amount alongwith interest.  Stating the case the petitioner prays for getting Rs.45,000/- (Forty five thousand) only and its maturity value plus 12% interest from 6/3/2013 till realization.  The petitioner also prays for Rs.20,000/- (Twenty

Contd………………….P/2

- ( 2 ) -

thousand) only as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.500/- (Five hundred) only as litigation cost.

     Op-Canara Bank, Kharagpur Branch contested the case by filing W/O claiming that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  The entire case is a matter of record and accordingly the Op admitted the fact of RD A/C with its date of commencement and maturity period.  In this connection, it is also admitted by the Op/Bank in terms of the RD A/C as mentioned on the reverse page of the pass book that the maturity value shall be paid on expiry of one month from the date of last payment of installment.  It is also admitted that last installment was paid on 16/1/2013 and the entire installment repaid by the bank on 6/3/2013 and subsequently, the maturity payment was transferred to the pension account of the petitioner.  The extra amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) only has been refunded.  The entire interest was duly credited on the schedule date of maturity of the RD A/C i.e. on 16/2/2013.  Besides, the Op considered the request of the petitioner and paid accrued interest amounting to Rs.16,654/- (Sixteen thousand six hundred fifty four) only on 22/6/2013 as a special case.  Thus, the case of the petitioner should be dismissed.

Decisions with reasons

      Considering the case of both parties inclusive of their documents, it appears that on 6/3/2013 an amount of Rs.33,984/- (Thirty three thousand nine hundred eighty four) only and further amount of Rs.49,962/- (Forty nine thousand nine hundred sixty two) only has been credited on 6/3/2013 and 22/6/2013 respectively to the pension account of the petitioner.  In this connection, there is no relevant document to show the exact date of maturity and payment of the sum received by the petitioner as against total claim of maturity.  So, there remains no contradiction but to accept the admission of the Op Bank through their W.O. supported by their documents produced at the time of hearing.  Total sum of Rs.83,946/- (Eighty three thousand nine hundred forty six) only as against total amount of installment has been credited to the pension account of the petitioner which, on calculation, we find a sum of Rs.8,946/- (Eight thousand nine hundred forty six) only  the petitioner received in credit of his pension account.  Thus, there appears no contra-indication from the end to the petitioner as to what shortage of amount he received on the maturity of his R.D. accounts.  If that be so, we do not find any cogent evidence save and except the documents on record which are expressing the petitioner received Rs.83,946/- (Eighty three thousand nine hundred forty six) only as against the total amount of installments Rs.75,000/- (seventy five thousand) only.  In absence of any stipulated amount of maturity value disclosed in the petitioner’s case, no alternative but to justify the sum as he received.

   With regard to the alleged case of late payment of maturity, there is no material from the end of the petitioner when we find the statement of account as regard to the recurring deposit that on 16/2/2013 as the date of maturity of the RD an amount of Rs.31,000/- (Thirty one thousand)

Contd………………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

only together with refund of extra installment of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) only has been credited in his favour. That apart, on 6/3/2013 the entire R.D. fund together with interest accrued as on the same date has been transferred to the pension account of the petitioner.

     Under the fact and circumstances of the case of both parties as discussed hereinabove we do not find any valid ground in the case of the petitioner which encourages us to hold any sort of deficiency in service against the Op-Bank as alleged. So, the case should be dismissed.

                 Hence, it is,

                                    Ordered,

                                                    that the case be and the same is  dismissed on  contest  without  cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                            Member                   Member                                 President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur