Date of filing – 28.02.2014

Date of hearing – 11.08.2017

            The instant complaint under Section 17 (wrongly mentioned under Section 12) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of a person claiming himself to be a consumer against the Bank on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them in a consumer dispute.

          In a capsulated form, the Complainant’s case is that he is a bonafide customer of Citi Bank being SB A/C No.0122311007.  On 05.12.1988 a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- and on 05.12.1988, 06.12.1988 he deposited a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- in his account.  The complainant was out of Kolkata for long and after coming back on 26.07.2013 he issued a cheque of Rs.1,80,000/- in favour of one Sk. Sirajul and the said cheque returned with remarks ‘A/C Closed’.  Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint with prayer for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,00,000/-.

          The OP Bank by filing a written version has stated that the complainant did not operate the bank account for a long period from July, 1989 to April, 1991 and as such the account became dormant with a negative balance. 

          I have seen the evidence led by the parties through the affidavit and the other materials available on the record.

          The fact remains that the complainant opened an account with the opposite party Bank being current (Domestic) account being No.0123311007.  The statement of accounts available with the record from 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1991 of the said account clearly shows that no cheque was deposited on the dates as stated by the complainant in his petition of complaint.  The statement of accounts (Annexure-A) goes to show that the account was closed in accordance with guideline of Reserve Bank of India and at the time of closure of the said account, there was a negative balance.  Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of OP/Bank for encashment of cheque of Rs.1,80,000/- issued by the complainant in favour of one Sk. Sirajul. 

          The prayer clause of the petition of complaint indicates that the complainant has made prayer for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,00,000/- aggregating Rs.40,00,000/-, which is disproportionate with regard to his claim and it is palpably clear that complainant has done so just to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  The above act of the complainant obviously is malafide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act.

          It is well settled that a Consumer Forum cannot be used to extort money for unjust enrichment.  In a decision dated 09.07.2015 in FA/515/2015 (Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta – Vs.- Tata Teleservices Ltd. & Ors.), the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has observed that the Consumer Forum at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with malafide intention to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned.

          Considering all the above, the complaint is dismissed on contest.  However, I do not make any order as to costs.