C.F. CASE No. : CC/20/2013
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Lakshmi Saha,
W/o Late Bikash Bhusan Saha,
Vill. Shimurali, College Para,
P.O. Shimurali, P.S. Chakdaha,
Dist. Nadia, PIN- 741248
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) The Chairman,
United Bank of India,
Head Office,
11, Hemanta Basu Sarani,
Kolkata – 700 001
2) The Chief Manager / Branch Manager
United Bank of India,
Ranaghat Branch, Subhas Avenue,
P.O. Ranaghat, P.S. Ranaghat,
Dist. Nadia, PIN – 741201
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL, MEMBER
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th August, 2013
: J U D G M E N T :
The instant case was filed by one Smt. Lakshmi Saha, W/o Late Bikash Bhusan Saha, a resident of Shimurali College Para, P.O. & P.S. Chakdaha, Dist. Nadia against the opposite parties, United Bank of India with an allegation of deficiency in service.
The genesis and sequence of the claim made by the complainant / petitioner is this : The husband of the complainant, Bikash Bhusan Saha (since deceased) had opened a Fixed Deposit Account (No. 0218100383875) of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 13.12.2009 with the United Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch and made nomination in favour of his wife Smt. Lakshmi Saha. The accrued interest of the said Fixed Deposit was being deposited in the Savings Account bearing No. 0218010270164 to the tune of Rs. 475/- in every three months. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant Bikash Bhusan Saha died on 21.01.12. After the sad demise of Bikash Bhusan Saha his wife, Smt. Lakshmi Saha being a nominee made her claim of the maturity amount of the aforementioned Fixed Deposit Account to the United Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch. But the opposite party bank denied to pay the said maturity amount of the fixed Deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- and insisted that Bikash Bhusan Saha ( since deceased) actually opened a fixed deposit account of Rs. 20,000/- with the OP bank which was inadvertently written as Rs. 2,00,000/- in the Fixed Deposit Receipt by the then desk officials of the OP bank. So the OP bank was ready and willing to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 20,000/-. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed by the complainant praying for reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On notice, the opposite parties entered appearance and contested the case by filing written version challenging, inter alia, the very maintainability of the case. The opposite parties bank have got to say that the proceeding is misconceived, malafide and groundless and unsustainable in law. On such ground the opposite parties bank pray straight way dismissal of the case.
The core points for consideration before us are:
(I) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties?
(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief, if so, to what extent?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
At the very outset, let us note that in order to substantiate their respective cases the parties did not prefer adducing any verbal evidence despite opportunity given to them. They relied upon documentary evidences only. The status of the complainant as ‘consumer’ is nowhere challenged by the opposite parties. Documents on record indicate beyond doubt that the complainant happens to be “consumer” as per meaning of the term laid down under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Other question relates to the point of limitation. To get relief under the Consumer Protection Act, one is to bring one’s petition of complaint within a period of two years from the date of cause of action has arisen. On this point too the present complainant is in the right side of the matter.
Now we switch over to the pivotal question involved in the case. The whole dispute between the parties, as it appears, rests on the actual maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit Account of Bikash Bhusan Saha (since deceased). Ld. Advocate representing the complainant / petitioner has got to say that the complainant / petitioner has every right to have the maturity amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as because her husband had submitted the Fixed Deposit Opening Form mentioning the amount as Rs. 2,00,000/- for a period of 35 months @ 9.5% interest with option of transfer of amount from his Savings Bank Account No. 0218010270164 for funding the newly opened Fixed Deposit Account and at the time of opening the said Fixed Deposit Account complainant’s husband was having a credit balance of Rs. 2,23,182.42 in his Savings Account. In order to substantiate her claim the complainant submitted a photo copy of the disputed Fixed Deposit Receipt wherein it was clearly mentioned that the complainant’s husband had deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- and to that effect the said receipt was issued to her husband by the opposite parties bank. Ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the receipt / certificate wherein a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was written both in figure and words and the receipt / certificate was duly signed by the Manager, Deputy Manager and Ledger keeper. But the opposite parties bank turned down the complainant’s claim on the plea that the husband of the complainant actually deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and inadvertently the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was written in the Fixed Deposit Receipt / Certificate. The opposite parties bank agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 92/- being account of proceeds of said Fixed Deposit Receipt and interest of broken period respectively. Thus, the opposite parties bank fall squarely within the mischief of unfair trade practice as defined under Section 36A of the MRTP Act, 1969, as well as deficiency in service under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental harassment and costs of the proceeding in addition to the loss suffered by the complainant.
In rebuttal, ld. Advocate representing the OP bank contends that on 13.02.2009 Bikash Bhusan Saha had submitted the fixed Deposit Account Opening Form mentioning amount as Rs. 2,00,000/- with option of transfer of amount from his Savings Bank Account No. 0218010270164 for funding newly opened Fixed Deposit Account. As per procedure of transfer of amount from Saving Account to Fixed Deposit Account cases, first Fixed Deposit Account bearing No. 0218100383875 was opened in the system. But inadvertently during the course of opening of account the desk officials opened the Fixed Deposit Account mentioning account as Rs. 20,000/-. Before funding the amount from Savings Bank Account the desk officials written the Fixed Deposit Receipt manually referring the Fixed Deposit Account opening form and mentioned the amount as Rs.2,00,000/- and handed over the Fixed Deposit Receipt to Bikash Bhusan Saha with a motive not to detain Sri Saha till the completion of related works. Before the day end funding was done taking into consideration of amount as mentioned during opening of account in the system i.e., Rs. 20,000/-.
Ld. Advocate representing the OP bank further pleads that the date of issue of the newly opened Fixed Deposit was also erroneously written as 13.12.2009 instead of 13.02.2009 and as the period was 35 months, so a simple calculation would confirm the original date of issue of the Receipt / Certificate was 13.02.2009 and this date was important for another reason because the deduction of Rs. 20,000/- was shown in the statement of Sri Saha’s Savings Account on 13.02.2009 for opening the aforementioned Fixed Deposit Account. Moreover, first quarterly interest of the said Fixed Deposit Account amounting Rs. 475/- was credited to Sri Saha’s saving Bank Account on 12.05.2009 and subsequently on completion of each quarter since the inception of the Fixed Deposit. It is clear that quarterly interest of Rs. 20,000/- @ 9.50% per annum is Rs. 475/- and quarterly interest of Rs. 2,00,000/- @9.5% per annum is Rs.4,750/-. The fact is well known to Sri Saha as he had utilized balance amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs. 2,00,000/- - Rs. 20,000/-) for his personal use. Savings Pass Book of Sri Saha was updated on 12.03.2009 on presentation by himself and Dr. Transfer for funding account was mentioned as Rs. 20,000/- and it was also very well known to Sri Saha for that he never brought the fact to the notice of the OP bank. Sri Saha had withdrawn, Rs. 20,000/- so many times from his savings account and balance as on 10.01.2012 in his account was Rs. 2642.42 only.
Ld. Advocate representing the OP bank has drawn our attention to the Rule of the Reserve Bank of India wherein it is stated that when the sum exceeds Rs. 50,000/- for opening a new Fixed Deposit Account then it must be deposited by way transfer from account or cheque. Otherwise, it will not be accepted. So, there is no question of opening a newly Fixed Deposit Account of Rs. 2,00,000/- and there is no such reflection in statement of the account of Sri Saha. Thus, in facts and circumstances the OP bank cannot be fastened with deficiency in service / unfair trade practice. In order to fortify their case the OP bank have submitted to the ld. Forum a photo copy of the statement of account of Bikash Bhusan Saha and an extract of the original server records issued by Chief Regional Manager, Nadia Region.
We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the ld. Advocate for both sides and also to the facts of the case and evidence on record.
In view of this solid and unflappable evidence the case of the complainant pales into insignificance. The case of the OP bank is supported by cogent and plausible evidence. Let it be noted here that the husband of the complainant was so motivated by greed that he deliberately did not approach the OP bank to rectify the said error of his Fixed Deposit Account rather he used to draw the interest of the Fixed Deposit Account of Rs. 20,000/-. Under the circumstances the complainant has no bone to pluck with the OP bank. The OP bank have firmly established that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was transferred from Sri Saha’s Savings Account for funding the newly opened Fixed Deposit Account on 13.02.2009. It is important to mention here that the aforesaid conspectus of the facts shows that the entire problem arose due to insincerity and callousness of the OP bank for that we reprimand and impose punitive costs upon the OP bank for wasting the precarious time of this ld. Forum.
On the basis of our observations noted above we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant bears no merit at all for which the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is
Ordered,
that the case is dismissed on contest with punitive costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
That the OP bank is directed to deposit the costs of Rs. 10,000/- with ‘Consumer Welfare Fund’ within a period of two weeks from today. In case, OP bank fails to deposit aforesaid costs within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
