West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/99/2018

Mr. Dilip Kumar Sen, S/O- Late Raimohan Sen - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Indian bank, Balurghat Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Pintu Sarkar

08 Aug 2019

ORDER

Receipt of less amount of matured value on RD from the Op bank has obliged the customer of the bank herein the complainant to lodge this complaint for redressal under section 12 of the CP Act 1986.

 

            The complaint in brief goes that the complainant has opened an RD account bearing No. 6558444381 on 25.08.2017 for which he will get Rs. 112915/- as maturity value after 12 months on regular payment @ Rs. 9000/- per month to the account. The complainant maintains a SB account bearing No. 966781417 with the Op bank, Indian Bank, Balurghat Branch. At the time of opening of RD account the complainant has in writing instructed the Op bank to deduct Rs. 9000/- on a fixed date in each month for depositing to the RD account regularly. The Op bank has not deducted the said amount for 3 consecutive months from September to November 2017, but on enquiry on 11.12.2017 through transfer for the said S/B account Rs. 36000/- for 4 months up to December 2017 have been deposited to the RD account. But at the time of maturity the complainant has got Rs. 110915/- instead of Rs.112195/- as promised in the RD matured value. It means the complainant has got Rs.1280/- less than what was actual matured value. It is averred that due to negligent attitude of the Op bank the installments of Rs.9000/- for 3 months have not been deposited and eventually the complainant has faced financial penalty. The complainant feels it the deficiency in service on the part of the Op and claimed Rs. 1280/- along with a compensation of Rs. 10000/- and a litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.

             The Op in his averment has denied all allegations of negligence and deficiency in service on his part. He has admitted the fact of maintaining the SB account and RD account with his bank by the complainant according to the account numbers respectively.  He has denied any instruction/option made by the complainant to deduct the installment amount of Rs. 9000/- from his savings Bank account on each month regularly. Under the circumstances it is prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

            The complainant has filed his written examination in chief but without documents but he had submitted some documents without firisti at the time of filing the instant complaint. The Op has also filed his examination in chief on affidavit with some documents in a firisti (kept in record).

            On argument the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has denied of not submitting an option form to deduct the installment of Rs. 9000/- per month from his savings account till maturity of the said RD scheme. So it is the negligent attitude and deficiency in service on the part of the Op bank for which the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 1280/- from the RD scheme.

            The Ld. Lawyer for the Op bank in his argument through document as filed earlier has denied any instruction from the complainant to deduct Rs. 9000/-per month till the date of maturity of RD scheme. So it is a fictitious complaint and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the Op as the date for deduction on installment had been written 25.01.2018.     

 

 

                      Points for discussion:

 

1. Is the complainant a consumer to the opposite party?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant eligible to get any relief?

 

 

                        DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

            Regarding Point-1 It may be said that the complainant is a consumer to the Op bank who has not denied him as his customer.

 

            The document No.5 account opening form dt. 25.08.2017 filed by the Op bank reveals that in the para special instruction regarding debiting on RD account the date from which debit will start remained vacant but the date 25.01.2018 has been written later. So apparently it reveals that the bank authority could not deduct any amount without clear instruction. But a deep look into the matter raises the question when the account opening form for RD scheme was submitted to the bank authority it was their duty to scrutinize the paper properly and to provide proper instruction to fill up every point of the form. It is surprising that the date for the monthly installment on the form remained vacant yet it has missed the sight of the concerned officer. Here lies the deficiency in service on the part of the Op bank. Moreover, the entire amount remained with the bank as the complainant has deposited Rs.36000/- to the RD scheme through transfer from the said savings bank account of the complainant on 11.12.2017.

 

            Regarding Point -3 We are of the opinion that though the complainant has claimed a loss of Rs. 1280/- but he must have got the interest of Rs. 36000/-  savings bank interest for the period from 25.09.2017 to 11.12.2017. So the complainant is eligible to get an amount subtracting interest in savings bank account for the period as aforesaid.   

             

 

 

              Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

             That the Consumer complaint No. 99/2018 is allowed on contest against the Op. The Op/Bank is directed to pay the complainant the rest amount subtracting the interest accrued on Rs. 36000/-  Savings Bank for the period from 25.09.2017 to 11.12.2017 from the actual claim of Rs. 1280/- within 45 days from the date of this order. No other cost as averred in the complaint is allowed. In default the petitioner is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

 

            All the issues are thus disposed of accordingly. In the result the case succeeds in part on contest.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.