Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The pith and substance of the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant Antaj Ali Akanda had an S/B account bearing No.4000331010005301 and old account No.4331 with the OP bank, the Branch Manager, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chilakhana Branch, Tufanganj Branch, Cooch Behar. The Complainant obtained a loan of Rs.27,000/- with EMI and one fixed deposit (RIDC) bearing No.27799 for Rs.15,000/- was deposited with the OP bank. The said fixed deposit was matured on 02.07.11 for Rs.24,689/- out of which Rs.15,720/- was adjusted against the loan account and the loan account is closed. So, the balance was Rs.8,969/- in the S/B account. Subsequently, it was seen that the statement of loan account was credited only Rs.13,731/- on 05.03.20. Therefore Rs.1989/- fell short credit in the account of the Complainant. On 13.03.2006 the Complainant deposited Rs.400/- in the loan account No.981 which the OP did not credit in the loan ledger book. The Complainant requested the OP to issue NOC against the said loan account but they refused to reply and the OP whimsically stopped S/B withdrawal facility. Therefore, the Complainant lodged complaint to the OP on 04.06.15 and 27.12.19 but the OP did not reply to the same. Therefore, the Complainant filed RTI petition to the OP on 10.02.20 and 07.03.20. After receipt of RTI application OP rectified the loan account but did not issue any NOC against the loan account. So, the activities of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award directing the OP to credit Rs.1989/- with up to date interest to the account of the Complainant, refund Rs.400/- with up to date interest, direct the OP to issue NOC against the loan account and an award of Rs.1.5 Lakh for deficiency in service and mental pain alongwith litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The positive defence case is that the case is not maintainable in its present form and there is no cause of action. Rs.400/- was credited on 13.03.2006 but due to clerical mistake the date was mentioned in the pass book as 13.03.2005. If any mistake caused it was due to the circumstances of change of banking manual system to CBS by the system which was migrated on and from 06.07.11. The Complainant illegally demanded money on different heads without any basis. The OP claimed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Conflicting pleadings of the parties persuaded this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for determination
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
Although the OP raised the issue as to non-maintainability of the case but there is no specific question of law as to why the case is not maintainable. After perusing the pleadings of the parties and the evidence in the case record alongwith documents filed by the parties it stands well established that the Complainant is a consumer under the CP Act. The relief claimed by the Complainant is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The date of arising the cause of action is well explained. Considering all these aspects the Commission comes to the finding that the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Accordingly Point No. 1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Points No.2 & 3.
It is the admitted fact that the Complainant is an account holder with the OP bank having S/B account No. 4000331010005301.
The Complainant in order to substantiate the case filed all the relevant original documents in the form of different annexures. The pass book filed by the Complainant clearly shows that the Complainant Antaj Ali Akanda is a customer of the OP bank having old S/B account No.4331 and subsequent computerised No. 4000331010005301 with the OP, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chilakhana Branch, Tufanganj Branch, Cooch Behar.
The record shows that Complainant took a loan Rs.27,000/- against which fixed deposit of Rs.15,000/- was deposited. The loan statement discloses that a sum of Rs.15,720/- was adjusted. As per their account the bank transferred Rs.8969/-(Rs.24,689/- - Rs.15,720/-). The Complainant seems to have not received that sum of Rs.1989/- as per Annexure-F being a reply given by the OP bank to the Complainant which is replied to RTI application. The bank has admitted that from the said matured amount of Rs.24,689/-, the recovery of loan account for Rs.15,720/- was made on 02.07.11 but the OP actually is entitled to get Rs.13,731/- but the bank actually deducted Rs.13,731/-. Accordingly the OP is entitled to get further Rs.1989/- which fell short credit.
The extract of the ledger account duly authenticated with proper seal and signature of the bank official, justifies the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant also proved the original receipt against deposit of Rs.400/- on 13.03.2006. The OP could not discard the claim of the Complainant by any documents. There is nothing to show that said sum of Rs.400/- was credited to the account of the Complainant. On the contrary the OP admitted that it is a clerical mistake which occurred due to conversion of the manual system of the bank into the core banking solution (CBS) system. The Complainant also proved different representation and complaint to the OP which was duly received by the OP on 04.06.15 and on other dates.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further argued that the OP bank is not allowing the Complainant to even operate the S/B account on the ground that the matter is sub-judies.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Complainant failed to repay the loan so it was turned to NPA. Thereafter the system was converted in the CBS. Due to manual operation their might have any inadvertent error.
The reply to the RTI being Annexure-F clearly shows that the OP admitted that at present there is no outstanding dues in the loan account of the Complainant. It is also admitted fact that as per the reply to RTI application dated 07.03.20 Ref. No. DOL/44/115/2019-20/F-RTI that Rs.400/- was deposited in the loan account of the Complainant. The reply also discloses that after receipt of the complaint the required rectification has been made and the loan account has been closed.
Thus the claim of the Complainant stands well established by oral and documentary evidence. So there is no bar to the entitlement of the relief claimed by the Complainant.
Thus having assessed the entire oral evidence in the form of evidence on affidavit and the original documentary evidence the Commission comes to the finding that the OP acted in a manner with the Complainant which tantamounts to deficiency in service and accordingly the Complainant is entitled to get the relief.
Points No. 2 & 3 are accordingly decided in favour of the Complainant.
Accordingly complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/17/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.1,989/- alongwith up to date interest which is to be credited to his account by the OP within 30 days from Final Order. The Complainant also gets further award for Rs.400/- with up to date interest and Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental pain and agony with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.57,389/- (Rupees Fifty seven thousand three hundred eighty nine only) within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order by an account payee cheque to the Complainant failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of its realization.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
