Sri Kalyan Karar,

son of late Ajit Kumar Karar, residing at 5/9, Joydeb Kundu Lane, P.S Bantra, District – Howrah,PIN – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.The Chairman,

    Kasundia Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

    situated at 122/1, Swami Vivekananda Road, P.S.  Shibpur, Distirct – Howrah, PIN – 711102.

2. The Branch Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Kadamtala Branch,

    47, Deshpran Sasmal Road,

    District – Howrah,

    PIN – 711101.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               Complainant Sri Kalyan Karar, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. 1 to  make payment of all deposited amount with interest till the actual payment, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost along with other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant issued two cheques being numbered

as 235560 dated 06-07-2012 for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and no. 235562 dated 25-07-2012 for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- which were deposited with O.P. no. 2 for clearance but both of them were dishonoured vide annexures. When complainant went to the office of O.P. no. 1 to know the reason, O.P. no. 1 told him that there were some restrictions from higher authority for which those cheques could not be cleared. But surprisingly, although

those dishonoured cheques were handed over to him by O.P. no. 2, complainant found  that subsequently both the amounts i.e., Rs. 25,000/- and  Rs. 5,000/- were withdrawn from his savings bank account lying with O.P. no. 1 being no. 38866 vide annexure bank statement provided by O.P. no. 1. Complainant asked for explanation of such anomalies from the official of O.P. no. 1. But O.P. no. 1 remained silent, and till 12-10-2012, no rectification or clarification could be provided by O.P. no. 1 to the complainant.  And on enquiry, complainant was given assurances that within a very short period the entire situation will be all right. And ultimately on 18-04-2013, he went to O.P. no. 1 to withdraw an amount of Rs. 44,000/- out of his total deposit of Rs. 45,000/- as he was being treated at Bangur Hospital for neuro problem. But he was asked to take permission from the higher authority of O.P. no. 1. He wrote to O.P. no. 1 immediately vide Annexure letter dated 18-04-2013 with a request to allow him to withdraw Rs. 44,000/-. But O.P. no. 1 remained silent without giving any reply which led the complainant to file this instant petition before this Forum with the aforesaid prayers.    

3.                  Notice was served. Both  o.ps.  appeared and filed written version.

Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.       Both the points are taken up together for consideration. O.p. no. 2 in its written version specifically stated that on their part there is no deficiency in providing service to the complainant as those cheques were only deposited to the current account of the complainant held with o.p. no. 2. And as O.P. no. 1 did not clear those two cheques, O.P. no. 2 had dishonoured those cheques and the cheques were handed over to the complainant. Complainant also did not claim any kind of relief from O.P. no. 2. O.P. no. 1 sent one letter dated 11-07-2013 to this Forum after receiving notice of this Forum detailing their state of affair along with an annexure which is a letter dated 17-09-2012 written by RBI to O.P. no. 1. We have carefully gone through the letter dated 11-07-2013 of O.P. no. 1 along with the Annexure dated 17-09-2012 wherefrom it is clear that O.P. no. 1 had violated the directions issued by RBI vide Directive Co. NO. BSD (III) D-80/12.03.535/2003-04 dated January 12, 2004.  And again that directions were superseded by RBI’s another directive vide Directive UBD.CO. NSB.D-251/12.29.026/2006-07 dated January 10, 2007 whereby O.P. no. 1 cannot disburse or agree to disburse any payment whether in discharge of its liabilities and obligations or otherwise along with some other restrictions.   Here we take a pose. C.P. Act, 1986 was enacted with the spirit of speedy disposal of the consumer cases. And one salient feature of the Act is to provide ‘better’ protection to the consumers. Here in this case, complainant is a bonafide consumer of O.P. He deposited his hard-earned money with a view to utilize  the same at the time of necessity. We are to keep in mind that complainant is under treatment of some serious illness, which requires a lot of money to be spent. So, it is very well understood that he is in earnest need of money. He is not asking for any kind of favour from the O.P. He wants his deposited amount of Rs.45000/- to get back for his treatment. The provisions of Section 3 of the C.P. act.  always an additional remedy to a bonafide consumer. Accordingly we hold that complainant is entitled  to get back his deposited amount from O.P.

      Accordingly, the instant case is not maintainable under the  C.P. Act, 1986.  

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  192 of 2013 ( HDF 192 of 2013 )  be  dismissed  on contest without   costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the case is allowed in part against O.P. 1 without any compensation but with litigation cost and dismissed against O.P. 2 without cost or compensation.

      That O.P. 1 is directed to allow the complainant to withdraw his deposited amount of Rs.45000/- within one month from this order.

      The complainant do get an amount of Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.

      The O.P. 1 is directed to pay his total amount of Rs.45000/- within one month from this order, i.d. the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.