DATE OF DISPOSAL: 07.08.2019.
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Subha Narayan Pattnaik has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a businessman and proprietor of Durga Engineering of village Ganjam and he has an Current Account in Rushikulya Gramya Bank, Chhatrapur now at present known as Utkal Grameen Bank vide Account No. CA-98 (vide New Account No. 13531884536. The complainant has deposited Rs.1,80,000/- only in cash on dated 05.06.2010 which is entered in the complainant’s aforesaid account and in the log book and ledger of books of the O.P.Bank. But when the complainant updated his pass book, the deposit is shown between entries 04.06.2010 to 10.06.2010, the date 05.06.2010 is not mentioned in complainant’s pass book against the said deposit of Rs.1,80,000/-, the reason best known to the O.P.Bank. On 10.06.2010 the complainant went to the O.P.Bank to withdraw money from his account and he noticed the above lapses of not declaring the deposited amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on 05.06.2010, for which the complainant suspected foul play and immediately complained before the O.P.Bank and the O.P. promised to rectify the same but the said mistake was not corrected. However the complainant several times asked the O.P. for rectification of their negligence with his C.A. account, but the O.P. remaining silent and avoiding the same with some pretext or other. Lastly the complainant submitted an application on dated 02.04.2015 and also reminder 26.08.2015 and on 01.09.2015. The O.P.Bank tactfully issued reply to the complainant vide No. UGB/8018/GB 190 dated 19.9.2015 i.e. after a gap of more than 6 month by accepting your Fault and negligence on your part which reflected in your said letter that as their record the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in his above said account on 24.05.2010, which was wrongly credited by the O.P.Bank to another account i.e. CA-90 ( New Account 13531884536 favoring Shree Krishna Rice Mill on detection , while balancing of books of account in the next month, the said wrong entry was reversed and credited to the complainants bank account on 5.6.2010 for rectification. The complainant submitted that how and why the O.P.Bank opened a same numbered new account (Account No. 13531884536) i.e. of the complainant and one Shree Krishna Rice Mill and the complainant further submitted that he has deposited an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in his above account No. CA 98 Durga Engineering on dated 5.6.2010and the O.P.Bank admitted in its reply letter dated 19.9.2015 that the complainant had deposited the said amount but mentioned the dated 24.5.2010 which is not shown either in his Bank account stated (from dated 9.6.2014 to 31.12.2014) or in his bank pass book. The complainant submitted that he has deposited an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on dated 5.6.2010 which is not shown in the Bank Account statement of Rs.1,80,000/- on dated 5.6.2010which is not shown in the Bank account statement (from dated 9.6.2014 to 31.12.2014) reflected as ‘TRF WRONG ENTRY’ instead of deposits of aforesaid amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The O.P.Bank have reverted an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- dated 5.6.2010 to the complainants Bank account. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- is wrongly debited by the O.P.Bank to another account from the complainant’s Bank account. The complainant issued a letter on 09.11.2015 to the Chairman, Banking Ombudsman, C/O Reserve Bank of India, Bhubaneswar regarding enquiry on fraud by way of concealment of deposit for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on 5.6.2010by the O.P.Bank. Finding no other alternative the complainant issued a registered legal notice to the O.P.Bank on dated 4.3.2016 to credit an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant’s bank account. The O.P. Bank received the said notice on dated 5.3.2016 but remained silent till date. The complainant approached before the Judge Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat, Bramhapur vide PLA No. 4/2017 but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to credit an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant account No. 13531884536 and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and sufferings in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. filed written version through his advocate. It is stated by the O.P.Bank that the complainant is having an account vide CA-98 (vide new account No. 13531884536 in the Utkal Grameen Bank, Chhatrapur Branch. The complainant has not given correct information to the Hon’ble Forum, rather misguided the Forum by giving wrong information as depicted in the complaint petition. The complainant has deposited by cash of Rs.1,80,000/- on 24.05.2010 in his current account No. 98 (New No.13531884536, but inadvertently the above amount was credited in 90 (old) of Sree Krishna Rice Mill instead of CA No. 98 (Old). On 04.06.2010 the clerical error was detected by the O.P. Bank when the complainant had come to the Branch of the O.P. to withdraw an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly the O.P.Bank has allowed the complainant to withdraw Rs.25,000/- by way of over draft system though there was a credit balance of Rs.9935/- lying in the complainant’s account. On the very next day i.e. on 5.6.2010 it is rectified by the Bank duly transferred/reverted the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-to the account of the complainant and the O.D. amount of Rs.15,065/- has been adjusted. Accordingly the credit balance became Rs.1,64,935/- on 05.06.2010 in the complainant’s account. The complainant has informed imbalanced information which are not true, but fabricated of creating a story without having any legal base in the matter. It is very much vivid in the above facts and circumstances of the case that the complainant has got back the deposited money as claimed by him by withdrawing through cheques from time to time and did his transactions regularly without having any complaint till 20.10.2014. The complainant for the first time has given the complaint to the Bank in the above matter on 02.04.2015 after a gap of around 5 years which clearly shows the malafide intention of the complainant to get back the deposited amount again which he has already received earlier from the Bank, in the pretext of giving false information to different Forums including before the Hon’ble judge, Continuous & Permanent Lok Adalat, Bramhapur and the Banking Ombudsman, Odisha. The complainant has come to the Forum after the gap of about seven years and which contravenes section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Forum thus i.e. The District Forum, The State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The complainant has lodged a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. But the said authority has not entertained the complaint, treating it as non maintainable under clause 9(1) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 and under Limitation Act, as the complaint pertains to the year 2010. The Hon’ble Judge Permanent and continuous Lok Adalat, Bramhapur vide PLA case No. 4/2007 has perused the original documents of the O.P. including the original ledger, vouchers etc. in presence of the complainant and the court could establish the truth and knowing the veracity of the subject matter of the case did not allow for conciliation in the matter and hence the conciliation failed. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case.
4. On the date of hearing the advocate for both parties are present. Heard argument from both parties at length and perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. It reveals from the documents filed by the O.P. that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,80,000/- on 24.05.2010. But the complainant has mislead this Forum that he has deposited Rs.1,80,000/- on 5.6.2010. Further it reveals from the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant that he has deposited Rs.1,80,000/- on 5.6.2010. But it is clear evident that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,80,000/-on 24.05.2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Bank has paid Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on 4.6.2010 when the account balance of the complainant was Rs.9,935/- as it came to the knowledge of the O.P.Bank that Rs.1,80,000/- deposit of the complainant has been wrongly transferred to another account as such on the very next day i.e. on 05.06.2010 the O.P. has credited Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant’s account and adjusted the O.D. amount of Rs.15,065/-. Further, it reveals from the complaint petition that after lapse of more than ‘6’ years the complainant has filed this case before this Ld. Forum. As per Section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act, this case is barred by limitation. Law is well settled in case of Pramod Kumar Mallik versus Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer/Administrator & Ors. Reported in 2012 (4) CPR 589 wherein the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “District Forum cannot entertain time barred complaint”.
5. Further law is also well settled in case of Mahipal Singh versus S.D.O. OPCity S/Division reported in 2012 (1) CPR 44 wherein the Hon’ble National CDR Commission has held that “Any person who approaches court or judicial Forum with unclean hands and conceals material facts, is not entitled to relief under law”.
6. On view of the aforesaid findings and clear position of law, the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 7th August 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
