The facts narrated by the complainant is that she has a savings bank account being no.0870053000000283 with South Indian Bank, Hatibagan branch, Fixed Deposit Account no.0870101000000733, Term Deposit Account no. 0870100000000272, Term Deposit Account no. 0870100000000273, RD Account no.0870103000000284 and RD Account no.0870103000000199 under the opposite party. The complainant further states that her husband Mr. Ranjan Kumar Paul has been working as a gold appraiser of South Indian Bank, Hatibagan branch. A dispute has been cropped up between her husband and the opposite party in which the complainant is not connected in any way with the said dispute. The opposite party in connivance with its higher office and Bidhannagar Branch office, locked the savings bank account, fixed deposit accounts and RD accounts nearly about Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs) only in charge of misappropriation of money by her husband in connection with gold loan of different persons, alleging that her husband had not performed his duty properly as a gold appraiser. According to the complainant she is in no way connected with any dispute between her husband and the opposite party. The complainant is neither the loanee nor a guarantor in respect of the gold loans. In spite of the above facts, the opposite party intentionally and deliberately locked and attached the savings account, fixed deposits accounts and RD accounts on 30.11.2019 illegally which tantamount to deficiency in service. Hence this case.
On scrutiny of the record we find that the opposite party appeared in this case and filed written version on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 3. But the complainant has filed this case against sole opposite party ‘the Branch Manager, South Indian Bank, Hatibagan branch, Kolkata’.
The opposite party stated that one Ranjan Kumar Paul was appointed as a gold appraiser of Hatibagan and Bidhannagar Branch of South Indian Bank on certain terms and conditions. In persuasion to such empanelment the complainant executed an indemnity bond on 10/04/2019 in favour of the South Indian Bank Ltd. and equivocally undertaken that he shall discharge his contractual obligations for appreciation and valuation of ornaments/jewels and immediately handing over it to the bank. He also undertook to weigh, test weighness of the gold ornaments/jewels, its purity and its carat worthiness and also whether the said gold ornaments/jewels are counterfeit one etc. exclusively it his own responsibility after taking very good care, caution, circumspection and skill expected from him. He also indemnified to make good the loss sustained by the bank until the indemnifier is discharged on termination of his engagement.
It is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant Ranjan Paul had certified spurious gold as 22 carat gold and has given certificates to that effect. Based on such certificates gold loans were granted to 14 (fourteen) borrowers named below :-
- Naresh Verma.
- Khussboo Verma
- Pankaj verma.
- Roshni Verma.
- Priyam Verma.
- Muskan Verma.
- Chandni Verma.
- Chandra Sekher Verma
- Neelam Verma.
- Prince Verma.
- Rajani Devi Toshawar.
- Vijay Kumar.
- Sajal Burman.
- Tarash Tudu.
The total fourteen loan amounts to the tune of Rs.4.09 Crore was disbursed on the basis of the appraiser’s report. Later, the gold deposited by the said loanees detected to be spurious and the bank suffered loss to the tune of 4.09 Crore.
The savings bank account, fixed deposit accounts and RD Accounts are in the joint name of the complainant and her husband Ranjan Kumar Paul. As the bank suffered huge pecuniary loss, in terms of the indemnity bond executed by the Ranjan Kumar Paul, the opposite party did not allow further operation in the complainants’ aforementioned joint accounts with her husband Ranjan Kumar Paul. According to the opposite party the bank has every right to forfeit the right to claim, the return of the money lying under any account including the joint accounts of the complainant in the event of loss to the banks. The opposite party has not demanded any amount of loan but demanded the amount of loss which the bank has suffered due to the false report of Ranjan Kumar Paul. There is no deficiency in service as such the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for determination
On the basis of the rival pleadings the following points are framed for determination :-
- Is the case maintainable in law and its present form?
- Is the case barred by limitation?
- Is the complainant entitled to any relief/reliefs as claimed for?
Decision with reason
In order to proof the case, the complainant filed affidavit in chief and the opposite party cross examined the complainant by filing questionnaire. Though reply of the questionnaire had been filed by the complainant but it cannot be treated as evidence as the same has not been submitted on solemn affirmation on oath in compliance with Section 38(6) and Section 38(9)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The photo copy of letter dated 30.11.2019 addressed to Mr. Ranjan Kumar Paul by South Indian Bank marked as document-1; photo copy of legal notice dated 08.01.2020 by Ranjan Kumar Paul to opposite party marked as document-2; photo copy of letter dated 16.09.2020 to opposite party no.1 by Advocate Ashish Bhattacharya marked as document-3; photo copy of savings account in the joint name of the complainant and Ranjan Kumar Paul marked as document-4, photo copy of fixed deposit receipt in the joint name of the complainant and Ranjan Kumar Paul marked as document-4/1, photo copy of term deposits are marked document-4/2 & 4/3; photo copy of RD accounts are marked as document-4/4 & 4/5.
The opposite party filed evidence on affidavit. The opposite party also not filed their reply on solemn affirmation to the questionnaire of the complainant as such the same cannot be treated as evidence.
Point No.1
This point is taken up- for consideration and discussion.
On perusal of the material on record it appears that the sole complainant Mrs. Sonia Paul filed the instant complaint case on 08/10/2020 against the opposite party.
From document-4 series we find that the savings account, fixed deposits and RD accounts stands in the name of Sonia Paul and Ranjan Kumar Paul but Ranjan Kumar Paul is not a party to this case either as complainant or as proforma opposite party though he is necessary party to this case.
It is needless to mention that when there are one or more consumers having same interest may file a case with the permission of the District Commission on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested in view of Section 35(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
It is evident from the record that at the time of filing of the case, the sole complainant Sonia Paul has not prayed and/or obtained any permission of the Commission to file the case on behalf of or for the benefit of her husband Ranjan Kumar Paul so interested.
As Ranjan Kumar Paul is a joint holder of the savings account as well as fixed deposits and RD accounts (document-4 series), he is a necessary party to this case.
It is apparent on the face of the record that the case is barred U/S 35(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Therefore, this point is decided against the complainant.
Point No.2
On scrutiny of the evidence of both sides we find the following facts are admitted by the parties :-
- The complainant has savings account as well as fixed deposits and RD accounts with the South Indian Bank, Hatibagan Branch jointly with her husband Ranjan Kumar Paul.
- The husband of the complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Paul is a gold appraiser of Hatibagan and Bidhannagar Branch of the South Indian Bank.
The opposite party has stated in his evidence that in pursuant to such empanelment as a gold appraiser the husband of the complainant had executed an Indemnity Bond on 10.04.2019 in favour of South Indian Bank Ltd. and he had equivocally undertook that he shall faithfully discharge his contractual obligation for appraising and valuing gold ornaments/jewels and immediately hand over to the bank. He had also undertook that he will handle, weigh, test the genuineness of the gold ornaments/jewels its purity, its carat worthiness and also whether the said gold ornaments/jewels are counterfeit one etc. exclusively at his own responsibility after taking very good care, caution, circumspection and skill expected from his engagement and if however, any loss or damage has been sustained by the bank after until the indemnifier is discharged on termination of his engagement and if however, such loss or damage has been sustained by the bank after his discharge, the loss, damage etc. being not detected at the time of the discharge of the indemnifier will be realised from out of his asset worth movable or immovable. The husband of the complainant has further undertook personally that he shall also be liable to indemnify all other incidental expenditure, the bank has to incur in connection to such action of the indemnifier. He also undertook that he will have no right to claim the return of any security that he has for or on any other account or he may thereafter make or any assets of funds belonging to him or any money lying to his credit, under any kind of account with the indemnified except upon full payment and satisfaction of all and every kind of claim, loss or liability be the nature of the same secure or otherwise present or remove, future or continent or circumscribed by any limitation whatsoever.
According to the opposite party the said Ranjan Kumar Paul husband of the complainant certified spurious gold as 22 carat gold and had given certificates to that effect. Based on such certificates gold loan were granted to 14 borrowers named below :-
- Naresh Verma.
- Khussboo Verma.
- Pankaj verma.
- Roshni Verma.
- Priyam Verma.
- Muskan Verma.
- Chandni Verma.
- Chandra Sekher Verma.
- Neelam Verma.
- Prince Verma.
- Rajani Devi Toshawar.
- Vijay Kumar.
- Sajal Burman.
- Tarash Tudu.
The total loan amount that the appraiser Mr. Ranjan Kumar Paul had certified was to the tune of Rs.4.09 Crore. Later on it was detected that the gold mortgaged by the above named borrowers were spurious and the bank suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4.09 Crore. Since, the bank had suffered substantial loss on account of the defective valuation, the bank did not allow further operations in appraiser’s/ Mr. Ranjan Kumar Paul’s accounts maintained with the Bank, including the accounts wherein he is a joint holder with his wife Sonia Paul for the entire balance amount available in the said SB/FD/KND/RD accounts. By virtue of paragraph no.7 of the Indemnity Bond executed in favour of the Bank, the Indemnifier Mr. Ranjan Kumar Paul forfeits the right to claim the return of the security under any kind of accounts in the event of loss to the Bank and the said clause admits the rights of the Bank to hold the available balance in the accounts including joint accounts. Moreover, by virtue of the Indemnity Bond the Indemnifier Mr. Ranjan Kumar Paul had further agreed to not to challenge any of the said action of Bank in any Court of law.
The opposite parties categorically stated in evidence that in the above mentioned 14 gold loan accounts, complainant failed to identify the spurious nature of gold.
The complainant did not care to rebut the above piece of evidence of the opposite party in cross examination by way of filing questionnaires. It also appears that the complainant has not denied the same in her evidence also.
Therefore, it is apparent of the face of the record that the above referred piece of evidence of the opposite party remained un-rebutted and unchallenged in this case. The complainant has not denied that the South Indian Bank has suffered pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.4.09 Crore in consequence of the certificates issued by the husband of the complainant certifying spurious gold as 22 carat gold.
Having considered the facts discussed above we are of the opinion that the opposite party has rightly stopped operations in the savings accounts and other fixed deposits and RD accounts which stands in the name of the complainant jointly with her husband Ranjan Kumar Paul. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above discussion, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus, the Point No.2 is also decided against the complainant.
Therefore, the case fails.
Fees paid correct.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost.
Dictated by me
….....................
President
