Date of Filing: 16-01-2014 Date of Final Order: 30-03-2015
The factual matrix of this complaint as can be gathered from the record is that being a customer of the Opposite Party Bank the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- at Cooch Behar branch on 30.05.2008 under fixed deposit scheme for 36 months and the said Opposite Party issued a certificate in favour of the Complainant bearing certificate No. C.S.P.C.C. 477100 A/C No. 0240100126489 with the maturity dates on 30.05. 2011 with the interest to be calculated @ 9.25% p.a. with maturity amount of Rs. 25,551/-. It is the case of the Complainant that after maturity of the said Fixed Deposit the Complainant submitted original certificate before the Bank on 11.03.2013 for renewal which was duly received by the opposite party Bank. Hereafter the Complainant went to the Bank of the Opposite Party several times for obtaining the said fixed deposit certificate which was deposited for renewal on 11.03.2013 but the concern authority did not pay any heed towards it. Subsequently, the Complainant after updated his pass book noticed that on 12.03.2013 his account credited with Rs. 4500/- by the Opposite Party then he made contact with the Opposite Party about the credited amount but the Branch manager failed to give any satisfactory reply. After repeated persuasion the Complainant failed to receive the said fixed deposit certificate from the end of the Opposite Party for which he also deprived from encashment of the said certificate and he along with his family members suffered financial problem due to negligent act also deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank and it officials. After that the Complainant submitted two representations on 29.05.2013 & on 04.07.2013 to the Opposite Party and the Chief Officer, Grievance Cell of the O.P. for obtaining the said certificate but to no good. Thus, finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case before this Forum seeking redress and relief(s) as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Opposite Party is contested the case by filing W/V contending inter-alia that the case is totally false and fabricated, barred by the law of limitation etc. and denied all most all the statements of the Complainant.
It is the contention of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party issued one Reinvestment certificate bearing No. 343219 dated 20.12.2004 amounting to Rs. 14,699/- and the maturity value of the said certificate was Rs. 17,574.39/- and another reinvestment certificate being No. 342737 dated 11.05.2005 amounting to Rs. 15,226/- which maturity amount was Rs. 18,204.48/-. After maturity of the said two certificates the Complainant deposited the same for reinvestment for a period of another 36 months on 20.05.2008. After receiving the two reinvestment certificates the O.P. credited the amount of Rs.18,204.48/- on 30.05.2008 and Rs.17,574.39 on 31.03.2008in the Complainant’s savings account No. 0240010285927 and on the same day the O.P. deducted an amount of Rs. 18,000/- only from the account of the Complainant but did not debit Rs. 20,000/- for another reinvestment but the said reinvestment certificate was wrongly issued by the O.P. without deducting the amount. This O.P further contended that on 11.03.2013 when the Complainant brought the reinvestment certificate before the O.P. for renewal for further 36 months the matter was scrutinized and verified by the O.P. and noticed that no such funding was done at the relevant period of time. The banking system generated machine detected the same and internally closed such account on 28.11.2008. Further, this O.P. contended that after detection the mistake this humble O.P. credited an amount of Rs. 4,500 only as interest for that period on good faith. The Complainant withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- from his S/B Account on 26.11.2008 that is suppressed by the Complainant before this Forum. Thus, it is clear from every corner that the Complainant only to squeeze some money has filed this case and the O.P. has no deficiency in service.
Putting all the above contention this O.P. prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Both parties have filed Evidence on affidavit. Perused the same but there is no new point for consideration.
In the light of the contention of both parties the following points necessarily came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument by the parties.
Point No.1.
In the light of discussion herein before we can safely decide that the petitioner is a valuable customer of the Opposite Party i.e. U.B.I Sunity Road, Cooch Behar Branch, thus, the Complainant is the Consumer of the Opposite Party above and his petition is a complaint in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The office of the Opposite Party is situated in the Jurisdiction of this Forum and the complaint value of this case is far less than the prescribed limit as such this point is also decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 & 4.
It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- at Cooch Behar branch on 30.05.2008 under fixed deposit scheme for 36 months and the said Opposite Party issued a certificate in favour of the Complainant bearing certificate No. C.S.P.C.C. 477100 A/C No. 0240100126489 with the maturity dates on 30.05. 2011 with the interest to be calculated @ 9.25% p.a. with maturity amount of Rs. 25,551/-.
The Complainant did not file the original FD certificate. However, the Opposite Party Bank filed X-erox copy of disputed Reinvestment Certificate (Annexure 3 of O.P.) which reveals that on 30.05.2008 the Complainant with one Sandhya Karmaker deposited Rs. 20000/- to the O.P. Bank as fixed deposit for 36 months and O.P. Bank assured that after maturity on 30.05.2011 upon presentation of said certificate the Complainant and one other will get Rs. 25,551.98/- as matured value with interest.
The Xerox copy of said certificate also bear notes “Already Closed on 28.11.2008” and “system automatic closed the A/C”.
It is the further case of the Complainant that after maturity of one of his fixed deposit certificate being No. 477100 he intended to reinvests the maturity amount of Rs. 25,550/- deposited the FD certificate to the Opposite Party bank on 11.03.2013 and accordingly the opposite Party issued an acknowledgement receipt against the said FD certificate. The point of the dispute is that the Opposite Party did not give him the certificate of the said Fixed Deposit of Rs. 25,551/- even after several requests.
It is the specific case of the OP that the OP issued one Reinvestment certificate bearing No. 343219 dated 20.12.2004 amounting to Rs. 14,699/- and the maturity value of the said certificate was Rs. 17,574.39/- and another reinvestment certificate being No. 342737 dated 11.05.2005 amounting to Rs. 15,226/- which maturity amount was Rs. 18,204.48/-. After maturity of the said two certificates the Complainant deposited the same for reinvestment for a period of another 36 months on 20.05.2008. After receiving the two reinvestment certificates the O.P. credited the amount of Rs.18,204.48/- on 30.05.2008 and Rs.17,574.39 on 31.03.2008 in the Complainant’s savings account No. 0240010285927 and on the same day the O.P. deducted an amount of Rs. 18,000/- only from the account of the Complainant but did not debit Rs. 20,000/- for another reinvestment but the said reinvestment certificate was wrongly issued by the O.P. without deducting the amount. This O.P further contended that on 11.03.2013 when the Complainant brought the reinvestment certificate before the O.P. for renewal for further 36 months the matter was scrutinized and verified by the O.P. and noticed that no such funding was done at the relevant period of time from the account of the Complainant for fixed deposit but the O.P. wrongly issued a receipt and for which it has no deficiency in service.
We find from the Annexure -1 of the O.P. i.e. Reinvestment certificate bearing No. 342737 dt. 11.05.2005 that on that date the Complainant invested Rs.15,226/- for 36 months and maturity amount of the same was Rs. 18,204.48/- and maturity date was 11.05.2008.
We also find from the Annexure 2 of the O.P. i.e. Reinvestment certificate bearing No. 343219 dt.20.12.2004 that on said date the Complainant invested Rs.14,699/-for 36 months and maturity amount of the same was Rs.17,574.39/- and maturity date was 20.12.2007.
We also find from the annexure-5 of the O.P. i.e. statement of account of S/B Account NO. 0240010285927 of the Complainant that on 30.05.2008 mature value amounting Rs.18,204.48/- of certificate No. 342737 and 31.05.2008 maturity value amounting to Rs.17,574.39/- of certificate NO. 343219 have been duly credited in said S/B Account of the Complainant.
It is also appeared that on 31.05.2008 Rs.18000.00 was debited from his account. But Rs.20,000/- for further reinvestment was not debited from the said saving Bank account on 30.05.2008, though on 30.05.2008 impugned reinvestment certificate was issued in favour of the Complainant showing receipt of Rs.20,000/- from him. So we find substance in the submission of the O.P.
Evidently, on 30.05.2008 there was Rs. 31,179,19/- in the said saving Bank Account of the Complainant.
It is the case of the O.P. that their employee could not debit the said Rs.20,000/- from the Saving Bank Account of the Complainant due to mistake.
So it is clear from our above made discussion that practically without debiting of Rs.20,000/- from the S/B Account of the Complainant the employee of the OP issued impugned reinvestment certificate. Subsequently said fixed Deposit Account was closed due to no funding from Banking System Generated Machine.
We find that admittedly on 12.03.2013 the O.P. 1 Bank deposited Rs.4,500/- in said S/B Account of the Complainant.
During hearing of argument of the case Ld. Agent / Advocate of the O.P. claimed that to show their bonafideness said Rs.4,500/- he credited in the Account of the Complainant.
But we further find from the Annexure C and C1 i.e. letter dt. 16.01.2014 addressed to the Branch Manager, UBI Cooch Behar and the Chief Officer, Grievance Cell UBI, Head Office, Kolkata that, entire matter was brought their notice but they did not pay any heed.
So we think for such act of depositing Rs. 4,500/- in the S/B Account of the Complainant, the O.P. Bank cannot avoid their liability for irresponsible act of their employee on the plea of mistake, especially when U.B.I is a Public Sector Bank, dealing with public money.
During hearing of argument the Ld. Agent/ Advocate of the Complainant cited a Ruling reported in 2014 (2) CPR 404 (NC) where “the Complainant made deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which she made a payment of Rs. 50,000/- by way of cash and for the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-she paid the same through cheque. The Canara Bank-the Opposite Party issued the Kamdhenu Deposit Scheme i. e. FDR in favour of the Complainant in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On maturity, she got back Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest in sum of Rs. 7187/-.
In the month of September 2009,it transpired that the Complainant had not deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The Kanara Bank/OP unilaterally debited the sum of Rs. 61,383/- without any written communication. She approached the Bank and it replied that the amount paid in cash on 10.10.2006 was not credited in her account book and it is to be presumed that no cash in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by her in cash.”
It was the plea of the O.P. Bank that due to mistake without service of any notice Rs 61,383/- was debited from the Account of the Complainant and same was done due to up gradation of the computer system.
Complainant case was allowed by the Hon’ble State Commission by granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased confirmed said order with following observation.
“Banking system is based on trust and faith. The Banks act as custodian of public money and they are accountable. They have acted in an irresponsible and negligent manner. The opposite party is a Public Sector Nationalized bank performing public duties and they should function fairly.”
Considering an overall matter into consideration and materials on record and relying upon the Ruling cited above we constrained to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with litigation costs of Rs. 5000/-. However he is not entitled to get Rs.25,551.00 as matured value of reinvestment certificate as it was proved that Rs.20,000/- has not been debited from his Account by the Bank as investment money.
Thus these points are decided in fovour of the Complainant.
Accordingly, the case succeeds in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the complaint be and the same succeeds in part with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- against the opposite Party Bank. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental pain agony and deficiency in service.
However, the complainant is not entitled to get Rs.25,551 as matured value of reinvestment.
The entire ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant directly by the Opposite party within 45 days failure of which the Opposite Party shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
