IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/47/2014

 Date of Filing:              08.04.2014.                                                                        Date of Final Order: 30.06.2015.

Complainant:    Smt Mitra Das, W/O- Biren Kumar Das, Vill. Achhra,

                         P.O.- Amritkundu. P.S.- Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Amrit Kundu Branch,

                                 P.O.- Amrit Kundu, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin -742136.( W.B.).

                            2. The Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, W.B. Region, 3^rd Floor “Baroda Tower”,                                                                                                                                       

                                 Block- GN, Plot No.38/2, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091

Madhurika Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate ……………………………….…………….for the Complainant.

Mr.  Sankhanath Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate……..………………………………for the Opposite Party.

                           Present:     Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                               Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.           

                                               Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra,Presiding Member.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner being housewife was maintaining a Savings Bank Account being Account No.22300100001458 before the OP No.1. As the computer was not in order during the period from 18.05.2012 to 14.03.2013 the account was maintained manually. That this complainant on 17.12.2012 deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the said account and that has been duly inserted in her pass book by concerned employee in hand writing. When she received the computerized balance account it comes to her notice that the sum of Rs.25,000/- which she deposited on 17.12.2012 has not duly accounted for and that amount has not been referred in computerized statement. Thereafter she drew the attention of the Banking staff for rectification but they refused to rectify the error. The gross mistake on the part of the bank authority nothing but deficiency in service. She also lodged a complaint before the local P.S. Getting no alternative this complainant filed the instant complaint for compensation and other reliefs as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

 Getting notice from the Forum this answering OP No.1 appeared by its agent and filed written version on 26.8.2015 in which he denied a few allegations leveled against him and admitted a few part. He stated that the case of the Opposite Party No.1, Bank of Baroda, Amritkundu Branch, in brief, is that the case is not maintainable, is barred by Law of Limitation. The petitioner is not a consumer under this Opposite Party. The statement made in the petition that the Banking Authority refused to rectify the error as stated by the complainant or there was gross mistake on the part of the Bank or the petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the Opposite Party are not true. The real state of affairs is that the complainant has a Savings Bank Account No. 22300100001458 with the Opposite Party Bank On 17.12.2012  the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Bank. The Bank entered the deposit in her pass book. The staff who received the amount did not enter the same in the ledger account. When the fraud of the staff was noticed, complaint was lodged against the staff and departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he was suspended from service.

                It is further stated that the deposit of Rs.25,000/- was made in the S.B. Account of the complainant on 09.06.2014. The petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs.24,000/- from her account and that was acknowledged by her in a letter dated 12.6.2014. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The petitioner has waived her right in respect of any further claim from the Bank. So, the instant complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.

                The OP No.1 further filed additional written version on 26.02.2015 in which he stated that the complainant filed an application to the banking authority on 16.09.2013 claiming sum of Rs.25,000/- from the bank. The complainant also stated that the receipt has been lost from her custody but she deposited the said amount. At that point of time on the basis of several applications it was detected that one employee of the bank misappropriated some deposit. The banking authority lodged an FIR to the concerned P.S. and departmental proceeding started against him. Thereafter the banking authority decided to return back the amount to the real depositors. The petitioner has no proof of depositing the amount. But to keep the good will and reputation of the bank the banking authority decided to pay sum of Rs.25,000/-to the petitioner.

                 That on 19.6.2015 the advocate on behalf of the OP filed a few documents and submitted that the OP credited a sum of Rs 25000/- on 09.06.2014 in the account of the complainant being S/B Account No.22300100001458 lying before the OP Bank. He also filed a letter of acceptance of the complainant Mitra Das dated12.06.2014 being annexure No.I in which the Complainant stated that she received the sum of Rs.25000/- from the OP bank and she has no further claim from the bank. The OP submitted that he has already deposited the desired amount of the complainant on 09.06.2014 and it is transpired by the A/C status report dated 17.06.2014 being annexure-II filed on 19.05.2014. The OP also filed copy of FIR being No.589/2013 dated 18/11/2013 of Nabagram P.S., Dist.-Murshidabad which speaks that the Op Bank lodged complaint against the staff who was related to misappropriate the bank money for which the complainant suffered.

                Argument heard in full on 19.06.2015. Fix 30.06.2015 for passing Final Order.

             From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant ‘Smt Mitra Das’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.P carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

                                                           DECISSION  WITH  REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

1. Whether the Complainant Smt Mitra Das is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

  From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of OP is entitled to get service from the OP.

 (2) Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

              Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.75,000/- ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.               

 (3) Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

OP No.1 admitted that an employee i.e Head Cashier of the Bank of Baroda, Amarkundu Branch collected the money from the customer but did not credited the same in the account of the customers. As such said casher misappropriated a sum of Rs.19, 92,000/- and the Branch Manager lodged a complaint before O.C, Nabagram P.S. Dist. Muirshidadabd to investigate the matter and take necessary action. The list of customers that produced by the Bank contains the name of this complainant. So, the allegation levelled by the complainant against the OP is also admitted by the Bank. The transaction inquiry of the account of the complainant depicts that Rs.25,000/- was credited on 9.06.14 as refund from BOB Amarkundu Branch and available balance became Rs.25, 976/-. Thereafter, Rs.24,000/- was withdrawn on 18.06.2014 as cash. The complainant deposited the sum of Rs.25, 000/- on 17.12.2012 and the said Rs.25,000/- was credited in her account on 09.06.14. So it can be presumed that to get her deposited money in her account she has to wait more than one and a half year and she compelled to take the recourse of the Forum for appropriate remedy. In the written version the OP admitted that deposit money of the complainant was misappropriated by the cashier of the bank and the money has been credited in the account of the complainant and acknowledged the same by a letter dated 12.06.14 and she also waived her right in respect of any further claim from the bank. The letter in question is a computer generated copy in which blanks are fulfilled by manual in ink and the complainant put her signature. The letter transpires that the complainant got her deposited money but waived her other claims.

            The complainant was absent on 23.04.2015, 01.06.2015 and 19.06.2015 and no step has been taken on her behalf. That on 19.06.15 the argument as advanced by the agent of the OP heard in full and the complaint is taken as the verse of the complaint for passing final order.

            The deficiency of the OP No.1 is proved by the complainant. The OP No.1 also admitted the case of the complainant and after a long time refunded the deposited money. But remained silent regarding interest of the blocked money, the compensation and the litigation cost. It is the utmost question that when the Branch Manager lodged the complaint before Nabagram P.S. on 18.11.2013 stating everything regarding the misappropriation of deposited money in the list, then they should take necessary measure to refund the money of the affected person including interest at F.D. rate. And it was the duty of the bank to communicate its customers properly regarding such misappropriation by its cashier and they are taking necessary measure to discharge their liability by crediting the amounts of the customers those who are affected by act of the said cashier. Instead of that the Bank elapsed more than one and half years to credit the amount of the complainant since the deposit. So we are in a considered opinion to direct the OP to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum of the amount of Rs.25,000/- for the period from 17.12.2012 to 09.06.2014 and a litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to complainant within 45 days from the date of the order.         

4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

                    The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant is able to prove her case beyond any reasonable doubt. So, the contesting Opposite Party is liable to pay the interest and litigation cost to the complainant.

                    Hence, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1, with litigation cost of Rs.3000/-.

                The Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum of the amount of Rs.25,000/- for the period from 17.12.2012 to 09.06.2014 and a litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the order. No other relief (s) is awarded to the complainant.

                At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party  No.1 shall pay fine @Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

                Let plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/ be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

                Dictated and Corrected by me.

      Member,                                                                                         President,           

    District Consumer Disputes                                                     District Consumer Disputes                                        

 Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.                                           Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.

      Member,                                                                                           Member,

   District Consumer Disputes                                                        District Consumer Disputes                                         Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.                                                Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.