The instant case was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Srikrishna Das S/o. Lt. Nalinikrishna Das of West Kothabari, Goyeshpur Dist. Malda before this Forum u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1956 and the said petition was registered before this Forum as complaint Case No. 44/2016.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as evidence is that the complainant is a customer of Punjab National Bank, Malda having his Savings A/c. No. 3975000100123537. On 02/06/2016 the complainant went to withdraw Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Only) from the said account and updated his Pass Book wherefrom it is revealed that an amount of Rs. 51,815(Rupees Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifteen Only) was debited from the Punjab National Bank in favour of M.L.I. Co. Ltd. and sum of Rs. 208/- (Rupees Two Hundred Eight Only) was deducted from his account as ‘DD ISSUE CHARGE’. On perusal of such entry in the Pass Book the complainant become perplexed and made an enquiry with the O.P. No.1 i.e. Branch Manager P.N.B. Malda Branch and the Branch Manager verbally assured him that the matter will be looked into.  After a few days the complainant received a policy document form PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd.viz. “ Metlife Endowment Saving Plan bearing Policy No. 21901928, basic sum assured Rs. 4,95,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Only) and the date of issue is 18/05/2016 and the date of maturity is 18/05/2026. Though in the petition of complaint it has been mentioned that the date of maturity is 18/06/2016. On scrutiny the complainant found that the signature of the complainant as appears in the policy document was forged and he apprehends one of the employees of O.P. No.1 i.e. bank is involved in such fraudulent matter. The further case of the complainant is that he never intended or expressed his desire to purchase the said policy. On 16/06/2016 he informed the Branch Manager by writing to exercise the ‘Free Look Provision’ but the complainant received a communication from the O.P. dt. 18/06/2016 that his request has been received after expiry of ‘Free Look Period’ of 15 days and the O.Ps were handicapped to process the matter. The complainant also informed the said fact to the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. Ultimately, there was no fruitful result as such the complainant finding no other alternative came to this Forum claiming to reimburse Rs. 52,023/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Twenty Three Only) for debiting his amount from his account and Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for litigation cost.

In this case the O.P. No.1 appeared before this Forum filed the written version separately. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 also appears before this Forum and filed the W.V. jointly.The O.P. No.1 has stated in the W.V. that the instant case is not maintainable in law and facts. The case is bad of non-joinder of parties and the case is beyond the Provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

The further defense case is that it is settled principle of Banking System that account holder has a right to deposit or withdraw or transfer any amount from the Savings Bank Account and the O.P. No.1 has prayed for dismissal of this case.

O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 filed the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The definite defense case of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 is that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and condition of the product commenced by the name “ Met Endowment Saving Plan”  voluntarily applied for a policy and voluntarily filled up the proposal form bearing No. 210923376 dt. 14/05/2016 and the complainant offered to pay a sum of Rs. 21,815/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred Fifteen Only). The further defense case is that on 16/06/2016 the complainant requested the O.Ps for cancellation of the policy under the ‘Free Look Provision’. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 vide letter dt. 18/06/2016 informed the complainant that ‘Free Look Cancellation’ request is not entertainable as because the application for cancellation of the policy under the ‘Free Look Provision’ was done after the lapse of 15 days. So the prayer was not considered. The further defense case is that the complainant never requested the O.Ps for cancellation of the policy within ‘Free Look Period’ of fifteen days. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In order to prove the case the complainant was himself examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined. He proved and exhibited the documents from Exts. 1 to 5 as per exhibited list. On the other hand the Branch Manager Mr.Chandra Sekhar Mishra was examined as O.P.W.-1 on behalf of the bank and he proved and exhibited documents from Exts. A to B.  

On the other hand no witness was examined on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.

Now the point for determination

Whether the complainant has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

It is the case of the complainant that he did not put any signature in the proposal form and further case of the complainant is that any employee of the bank would have forged the signature of the complainant in the proposal form. So the complainant will have to prove that the signature as appears in the proposal form in the policy document was not signed by him. On the other hand the case of the O.P is that the complainant voluntarily put his signature in the proposal form. So the burden of prove lies upon the complainant to prove that any employee of the bank put his signature in the proposal form and his signature was forged by bank employee but the complainant did not pray before this Forum for comparison of his signature in the proposal form. How this Forum will come to a conclusion that he did not put signature in the proposal form and any employee of the bank forged his signature in the proposal form. So considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

  C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.