Orissa

Baleshwar

CC/155/2014

Sri Gatikrushna Mallick - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sj. Binay Ketan Parida & Others

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BALASORE
AT- COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, P.O, DIST- BALASORE-756001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/155/2014
 
1. Sri Gatikrushna Mallick
S/o. Late Harekrushna Mallick, At- Patharpenth, P.O- Bahanaga, P.S- Soro, Dist- Balasore
Balasore
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Bahanaga Branch
At/P.O- Bahanaga, Dist- Balasore, PIN- 756042
Balasore
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHANTANU KUMAR DASH PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SARAT CHANDRA PANDA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sj. Binay Ketan Parida & Others, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Pradip Kumar Ash & Others, Advocate
Dated : 17 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

                        The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Bahanaga Branch, Dist- Balasore.

                    1. Bereft of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Complainant had availed one Agricultural loan of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only on 16.02.2008 from O.P-Bank. But the O.P-Bank allowed the Complainant to receive Rs.10,000/- and the rest Rs.10,000/- was invested in L.I.C of India, Balasore. But the Complainant has neither received premium paid receipt nor Policy bond either from O.P-Bank or from L.I.C of India. On 23.10.2013, the Complainant issued a letter to O.P-Bank for final closure of the Loan Account, but the O.P-Bank remained silent till 06.01.2014. Thereafter, the Complainant served one legal notice through his Advocate on 06.01.2014 requesting them to repay the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest. In addition to it, the Complainant served another legal notice through his Advocate on 12.08.2014 requesting them to clarify about the deposit of Rs.10,000/- towards LIC Policy. But the O.P-Bank preferred to remain silent in the matter. For all practical purposes, the Complainant has availed Rs.10,000/-, out of loan amount of Rs.20,000/-. Prayer for deposit of Rs.10,000/- along with interest in the above said loan account and supply with the L.I.C Policy.

                    2. Written version submitted by O.P-Bank through his Advocate, where they have denied about the merit as well as its cause of action. Further they have not admitted about the averments stated in Para-2 to 7.

                    3. On perusal of the case record and the documents filed by both the contesting Parties, it is noticed that:-

(i) Copy of SB Passbook No.003421 of the Complainant w.e.f 01.07.2005 to 15.02.2008, where balance in the said account is Rs.326.34ps. (Rupees Three hundred twenty six and thirty four paisa) only. By availing one Agricultural Loan for Rs.20,000/-, the Complainant may not prefer to invest Rs.10,000/- towards L.I.C premium in normal circumstances.

(ii) Withdrawal slip dt.16.02.2008 tendered by the Complainant for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- cash before the O.P-Bank do not disclose about the mode of payment i.e. which denomination of note was paid to the Complainant. And also credit slip for issuance of a demand draft for Rs.10,000/- favouring L.I.C of India do not disclose the denomination of notes tendered by the Complainant in the instant case.

(iii) Acknowledgement in support of receipt of the said demand draft for Rs.10,000/- by the Complainant is not available on record.

(iv) For issuance of the said demand draft for Rs.10,000/- favouring L.I.C of India no exchange/ commission collected by the O.P-Bank from the Complainant, though normally collected as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. So, non-collection of exchange/ commission for such Demand draft of Rs.10,000/-  in favour of L.I.C of India, prima-facie shows such draft issued by the Bank in favour of L.I.C of India, even if, in deposit slip, the signature of the Complainant is available. 

(v) During hearing and argument, the Ld. Counsel for the O.P-Bank admitted that O.P-Bank is entrusted as one of the Corporate Agent by the L.I.C of India to sell their Policies.

(vi) The L.I.C Policy bond has not yet been handed over to the Complainant by the O.P. So it is the duty of the O.P-Bank to hand over the Policy bond to the Complainant by collecting from the L.I.C Office, or in the alternative, to refund the amount to the Complainant. So, the Complainant is entitled for cost of the case and in our opinion, a sum of Rs.1,000/- will meet the ends of Justice. Hence, Ordered:-      

                                                     O R D E R

                        The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P is directed to hand over the required L.I.C Policy bond to the Complainant, by collecting it from proper source within 30 days from the date of communication of this Order, in the alternative, refund the required amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 7% p.a from the date of deposit i.e. 16.02.2008. Further, the O.P is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant, failing which the Petitioner is at liberty to realize the entire amount under due process of Law.

                        Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 17th day of January, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHANTANU KUMAR DASH]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. SARAT CHANDRA PANDA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.