HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

       This is a separate appeal which has been directed against the judgment and order dated 23/04/2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in CC 134 of 2013 wherein Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the complaint case allowed the same on contest against the OPs no. 1 to 5 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and dismissed the same on contest against the OP no. 6. The Ld. Trial Forum also held the OPs no. 1 to 5 liable jointly and severally and directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 15,150/- (Rupees fifteen thousand one hundred fifty) only, and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only within 15 days from the date of the order with default clause.

       Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 23/04/2014, this present appeal has been preferred by the complainants questioning the propriety of the judgment and order impugned not being to their full satisfaction. It is to be mentioned that during pendency of the appeal the original appellant no. 2 died and her legal heir was substituted.

       The complainants/appellants (hereinafter referred to as appellants) filed the complaint case being CC 134 of 2013 claiming recovery of Rs. 15,150/- (Rupees fifteen thousand one hundred fifty) only from the OPs including OP no. 6/respondents (hereinafter referred to as respondents). It is not in dispute that the appellant no. 1 was an employee of the UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch and he was a resident of Chinsurah at the material point of time and he purchased two bonds worth Rs. 10,100/- (Rupees ten thousand one hundred) and Rs. 5,050/- (Rupees five thousand fifty) from the UTI showing his bank account no. at UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch registered with the said UTI to receive its maturity value. The appellants subsequently changed their residence from Chinsurah to Kolkata and the savings account no. being 3986/18, UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch was transferred to UCO Bank, Prince Anwar Shah Road Branch, Kolkata having the savings account no. 9180. The averments of the petition of complaint filed before Ld. Forum concerned revealed that the appellants particularly the appellant no. 1 made several correspondences with the authority of UTI, the Branch Manager of UCO Bank at Prince Anwar Shah Road Branch and the Zonal Manager of the UCO Bank at Burdwan in order to search the whereabouts of the cheques concerning the maturity value of the UTI bond. The materials on record clearly reveal that the appellants herein being the complainants of CC 134 of 2013 started agitating their grievance after a lapse of 9 years and they were sitting idle for a long period. It is not disputed that the appellants transferred their account from the UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch having account no. 3986/18 to UCO Bank Branch, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata Branch in the year 2001 having account no. 9180. It was the duty of the appellants to intimate the bank account no. and their changed address to the Authority of the UTI in due time, but they failed to discharge their obligation to get the appellants concerned informed about the change of situation including their change of address and change of account no. and branch and their sitting idle cannot be excused in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Some documents have been produced before the Ld. Trial Forum to establish that the parties to the proceedings were vigilant and they discharged their pious obligation and they performed their duties perfectly. But the fact remains, no documents with regard to the whereabouts of the cheques issued in favour of the appellants were seeing the light of the day. We are ignorant about the fate of the cheques though the office of the UTI concerned by a letter dated 10/11/2010 informed the appellant no. 1 that the scheme of the UTI was terminated on 31/12/2000 and the maturity cheques were issued and despatched on 01/01/2001 to their address recorded with the UTI, duly endorsing the bank particulars as SB account no. 3986/18 of UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch. No evidence is available before this Commission with regard to encashment of the cheques by the said branch at any point of time though the savings bank account no. of the appellants was closed during that period. Frankly speaking, the appellants being the complainants of the complaint proceeding did not discharge their responsibility by intimating their change of circumstances with regard to their change of residence and the account no. and the name of the branch of the concerned bank for getting effective steps by the UTI and, we are afraid, this is absolutely a fault on the part of the appellants who are intending to take the benefit of the same with the help of correspondences and we are also afraid that Ld. Trial Forum disposed of the case and passed a decree in favour of the present appellants on the strength of purely surmise and conjecture.  No documents has been forthcoming before us to fix up liability of any particular official/officials and delay in filing the complaint,  taking appropriate steps in time which became fatal to the merit of the claim, particularly when no cogent explanation has been given by the complainants with regard to delay in filing the complaint case in terms of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

       Since we decided that the appellants herein being the complainants of the original proceedings were at fault by not supplying the relevant particulars to the UTI authority for getting the maturity value in due time, for the UTI bond, sat idle for a long period of 9 years or more, their conduct cannot be said to be proper particularly when it is evident that the appellant no. 1 was a bank employee and he was aware of the entire process. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are unable to hold that Ld. Trial Forum (i.e. the D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit-II) was justified in passing a decree in favour of the appellants, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal with the above observations and simultaneously we set aside the judgment and order dated 23/04/2014 resulting dismissal of the CC 134 of 2013. Parties do bear their respective costs of this Appeal.