JUDGEMENT Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant no.1 is an ex-employee of UCO Bank and complainant no.2 is the wife of the complainant no.1 and at present they are residing at the premises of 630/1, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700045. Previously complainants resided at Chinsurah Hooghly at the premises No.213/2 M.G. Road, P.O. Chinsurah Hooghly, Pin-712101and disposed of the said premises in the month of February, 2001 and thereafter the complainant is permanently residing the aforesaid premises of Kolkata. During the period of residing at Chinsurah, the complainants opened a savings A/C being S.B. A/C No.3986/18 in the UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch and during the period complainants purchased two bonds from the office of UTI and within the said bonds they mentioned the aforesaid account number to the office of UTI. Subsequently the complainants sold the premises at Chinsurah in the month of February-2001 and requested the manager of UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch to close down the S.B A/C No.3986/18 tentatively and transferred the entire balance to the UCO Bank Prince Anwar Shah Road Branch in S.B. A/C No.9180. After lapse of the long nine years and for the shifting of the residential house the above two bonds were misplaced and the complainant forgot to withdraw mature value of two bonds from the office of UTI after due date and due to long overdue, UTI remitted the proceeds of two bonds through their MICR cheque No.003735 dated 03.01.2001 for Rs.10,100/- and another MICR cheque No. 003728 dated 03.01.2001 for Rs.5,050/- and the said two cheques have been forwarded to the UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch in view of the instruction submitted by complainant to send the above two cheques to the S.B. A/C No. 3986/18, upon enquiry from the office of the UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch it has been informed that they have not received any MICR cheques from the office UTI. Complainant no.1 requested the Zonal Manager, UTI to inform the details of the above two cheques. Subsequently the UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. vide letter dated 10.11.2010 informed the complainant that the maturity cheques were issued and dispatched on 01.01.2001 to his address endorsed the bank particulars as SB A/C No.3986/18 of UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch. Thereafter complainant no.1 sent a letter on 28.07.2010 to the Sr. Manager UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch and stating that upon enquiry it was informed from UTI that they have made payment by MICR cheque No. 003735 dated 28.06.2010 for Rs.10,100/- in favour of Himangsu Kumar Basak and Smt Aparna Basak and another MICR cheaque No.003728 dated 28.06.2010 for Rs.5,050/- in favour of Aparna Basak and Himangsu Kumar Basak. The complainant further requested that whether the said two cheques being forwarded to his office by UTI or return back to the office of UTI for closer of the SB Account. In absence of receiving of any response from the Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, complainant no.1 informed all facts to Zonal Manager, UCO Bank Burdwan Division by his letter dated 16.09.2010 which was acknowledged by the Chief Officer of the said Division on 01.10.2010. In response of two letters dated 28.07.2010 the Sr. Manager of UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch replied vide letter dated 06.09.2010 stated that the account was closed and transferred to Prince Anwar Shah Road Kolkata on 14.05.2001. So no such entry appeared in that account, moreover they found no such entry in their suspense account also. Subsequently complainant no.1 vide letter dated 25.11.2010 addressed to the Sr. Manager of UCO Bnak Chinsurah Branch and stated that the Zonal Manager UTI vide letter dated 10.11.2010 informed that the concerned two cheques have been encashed by his office on 28.06.2001 and requested to verify. Inspite of service of several letters to the competent persons, the complainant finding no other alternatives served letter to the Chairman and the Managing Director on 24.02.2011 and requested him to issue necessary instructions to the concerned department to tress out the real facts. Thereafter complainant no.1 also served a letter to 09.07.2011 to the said Chairman and Managing Director as stated him grievances and further stated that the matter may be referred to the Grievance Cell. Subsequently the complainant served letter on 06.12.2011 but he failed to receive any satisfactory reply from their end. Complainant no.1 further served letter to the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank on 12.11.2012 to verify their clearing register cheque forwarding bill and s/c bill for the last week of June, 2001. But it is stated that the Chief Manager, FGMO, Kolkata vide letter dated 19.07.2011 that they have referred the same Zonal Office, Burdwan and subsequently the Assistant General Manager Operations and Services vide letter dated 18.07.2011 reported that they received a complaint on 09.07.2011 but they failed to give any satisfactory answer in this regard and in such a maner complainant run from here and there and finding no relief complainant ultimately filed this complaint for refund of the said amount of Rs.10,100/- and Rs.5,050/- and including interest and compensation against the ops. On the other hand op no.6 UTI Authority by filing written statement submitted the maturity proceeds against the said unit certificates was processed vide following Account Payee cheques being nos. RD200165M00220971 dated 03.01.2001, MICR No.003735, amount of Rs.10,100/- and another Account Payee Cheque No.RD200165M00217731, dated 03.01.2001, MICR No.003728, amount of Rs.5,050/- and same were sent by Registered Post with A/Ddispatched to the unit holders i.e. present complainants’ at their address 213/2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.O.-Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101 through bulk registered post, duly endorsing the bank particulars as SB A/C No.3986/18, UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, without calling back the original unit certificates, as per the procedure laid down UTI for payment of redemption proceeds and they have also submitted that on 28.06.2001 the said amount was encashed and invariably from UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly. Moreover complainant has also not submitted his pass book related to the account No.3986/18 maintained with UCO Bank Chinsurah Branch to verify the credit entry and moreover complainant did not enquire about the maturity process in due time and filed the instant case in the year 2013. Then the oblivious conduct of the complainant therefore cannot be attributed to the answering op and so the complaint is absolutely barred by limitation as per Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act 1986 and for which op no.6 is no way liable and for which the complaint should be dismissed. On the other hand op nos. 1 to 5 by filing written statement submitted that MICR Cheques have not been forwarded to UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly from the office of UTI and at any point of time, UTI has also not stated MICR cheque has not been forwarded to the UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch from the office of UTI directly. But fact remains the cheques were sent to the address of the complainant at Chinsurah, might be in the said cheques there is particular of SB A/C No.3986/18 of UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch. But op nos. 1 to 5 alleged that no such cheques were received by the op nos. 1 to 5 from the office of UTI and that account was closed and transferred to Prince Anware Shah Road, Kolkata on 14.05.2001 as per prayer of complainant. So, on such entry appeared in that account and moreover no such entry is found in their suspense account also. But they have admitted that complainant was an ex employee of the UCO Bank and practically complainant did not agitate the matter forthwith and waited for long 10 years and complainant has forgotten the same and all the documents have been disposed of. So, no particular document can be produced at their present stage and question of encashment of the cheques by the UCO Bank has also not been proved by any means and in the circumstances the complaint should be dismissed. Decision with reasons On comparative study of the complaint including the written version of the ops and further considering the fact as disclosed and counter claim of the ops, it is clear that no cheque was directly sent to UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly by UTI because UTI authority has specifically mentioned that the said two cheques were sent to the address of the complainant at Chinsurah as it was given by the complainant and as per op no.6’s version, the said two cheques were sent to the address of the complainant at 213/2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Post-Chinsurah, Hooghly, Pin-712101 through bulk registered post. So, it is clear that cheques were not sent to UCO at any point of time by the UTI. Truth is that said two cheques MICR cheques were issued by op no.6 were of dated 03.01.2001 and op no.6 alleged that it has been paid on 26.06.2001. but no such document regarding issuance of such cheques and encashment of the cheque by the Bank Authority, Chinsurah is produced. But op has produced their bank statement showing that on 28.06.2011, two cheques have been encashed by the UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly. But anyhow UCO Bank has tried to convince that those documents are not in the entry. So, after lapse of nine years it is not possible for them to say about that. But it is proved beyond and manner of doubt that complainant was at fault from very beginning because he shifted from Chinsurah address No.213/2, Mahatama Gandhi Road, P.O.-Chinsurah, Hooghly in the month of February-2001 and his bank account No.3986/18 of UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly was also closed down and entire balance of the said account was transferred to SB A/C No.9180. So, there was no chance of serving the cheque to the address of the complainant by the peon and question of sending the cheques to the UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch by the UTI does not arise. Another factor is that when in the month of February-2001 the SB A/C No.3986/18 was finally closed, then there was no question of encashment of those cheques by the complaint from the op Bank and op Bank had no scope to encash the same. Further fact is that complainant was silent for long ten years from the date of alleged encashment dated 28.06.2001 and op no.6 has confirmed that cheques were encashed by the UCO Bank at Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly on 28.06.2001 when from the account of the op no.6 said amount was deducted and truth is that in the said cheques bank account of Chinsurah Branch was noted. But now the position is such that UCO Bank is unable to produce all those papers because it was long back of the year 2001 and the present complaint was filed in the year 2013 and no doubt it was the latches on the part of the complainant. But after thorough consideration of the entire materials, we find that some fraud had been practiced by the UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly by some other persons when complainant left Chinsurah address permanently after selling the said premises to Lake Gardens, Kolkata in the month of February-2001. So, apparently at this stage, op Banking Authority has taken a plea that said cheques were not encashed by the op bank is completely unfortunate and in fact UCO Bank Authority did nothing and only to save their skin they have taken different type of technical issues that all the documents had already been disposed of as per banking rules from the date of such encashment etc. But truth is that UCO Banking Authority took a very casual approach when they realized that it was their fault and somehow or otherwise fraud practiced has been made by some other persons after receiving the cheques from the peon in absence of the complainant. But they tried to discharge their all liabilities upon the complainant because complainant was sitting idle for nine years, might be a person may forget something but for that reason the entire dues from UTI which has already been sent, shall be encashed by some fraudulent person at the behest of the Banking Authority that cannot be taken into account in this case in view of the fact truth is that it was encashed by the Chinsurah Branch of UCO Bank on 28.06.2001 and for which we are convinced to hold that the said amount of Rs. 10,100/- and Rs.5,050/- must be returned to the complainant by the op nos. 1 to 5 immediately along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant when withdrawal has been made by fraudulent means with the help of the said bank. But anyhow in this case moral approach of the bank is not at all found and entire bank administration has tried to convince this Forum that they are no way liable for that. But we have gathered that in the present case the Banking Authority op nos. 1 to 5 no doubt adopted an unfair path which must not be taken by the Banking Authority being a Nationalized Bank of India. Whatever it may be we are confirmed that op no.6 has proved that the said two cheques were encahsed from the Chinsurah Branch even though the bank account of the complainant had already been closed. It indicates that fraudulent act has been done by the bank and sent with the help of some perpetrators. When it was detected that complainant is nowhere within his previous address and his account has already been closed and so op Bank Nos. 1 to 5 are liable to pay the same. No doubt when bank has no authority to swallow the good money of the customer by any means and that cannot be principal theory of Banking Business of UCO Bank or any bank. Moreover in this case op bank has not tried to produce the letter dated 10.11.2010 which was written by the op no.6 to the Sr. Manager of UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch, Hooghly and in that letter op no.6 clearly noted down the account number, bank name and branch and also the new account number which is mentioned in the letter of the op no.6 dated 10.11.2010 but op has not produced that documents. Reasons for withholding the same sufficiently proves that the entire amount has been fraudulently withdrawn with the help of UCO Bank, Chinsurah Branch. So, in the above circumstances we are convinced that op nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally shall have to pay the said amount to the complainant. But at the same time we are telling very specifically that the complainant was very much reluctant about his deposit and other matter for which the op bank got such scope to say that all the documents are already disposed of. So, it is impossible to say how it was encahsed. In the result, the complaint succeeds against op nos. 1 to 5 and same fails against op no.6. Hence, it is ORDERED That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- against op nos. 1 to 5 and same is dismissed on contest without any cost against op no.6. Op nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally are directed to pay a total sum of Rs.15,150/- (Rs.10,100/- + Rs.5,050/-) and also a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost as awarded, i.e. total Rs.35,150/- finally failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for each day’s delay and also for adopting unfair trade practices, punitive damages @ Rs.300/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and even after that if it was found that op nos. 1 to 5 are reluctant to comply the order in that case penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 shall be started against them.
| | [HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER | |
