This case has been filed by the complainant, Sri Kanti Dutta that one term deposit receipt issued by opposite party concern vide no.STD/5350 dt.11.4.1992 to complainant and the maturity date of said term deposit was 15.2.1995 and said term deposit receipt was misplaced by the complainant when he shifted his house and after long searching he discovered the receipt on June, 2016 and after find out the receipt he send a letter to the opposite party on 14.7.2016 requesting the opposite party to encash the same but the opposite party pay no heed thereof. Finding no other alternative he sent Advocate notice to opposite party on 3.10.2016 but opposite party did not give any response. Lastly he himself send a letter to opposite party on 18.11.2016 requesting him to issue said term deposit vide no. STD/5350 dt. 11.4.1992 but opposite party no heed thereof. The cause of action of this case arose on 14.7.2016 when he send first letter to the opposite party and aggravated on 18.11.2016 and still continuing.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to encash schedule mentioned term deposit with interest within the stipulated period and to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the complainant and other relief.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that the opposite party is working as Principal Officer of the SBI Chinsurah Branch and discharge his duty in official capacity accordingly to the norms of the Bank. Being the authorized head of the Bank, he always tries to maintain healthy relation with the customer and the question of deficiency of service does not arise. Complainant does not abide by the norms of Bank realization of matured value as stated in para 5 and 6 of the plaint if it is lost, he should lodge G.D.E. in local P.S. along with submit an Affidavit and Indemnity Bond before the authority of bank.
The opposite party Bank further states that the complainant communicate the matter to opposite party Bank after more than 25 year. The entire banking system is now changed, each and every Accounts related matters are functioning through modern technology of C.B.S. Accordingly this claim is barred by limitation as per norms and rules and regulation of the Bank. The alleged documents along with other related documents are not at all available in the Bank in usual and official course of business within statutory period but after change of the system it is very difficult for Bank official to locate the alleged S.T.D.R. due to Core Banking System. Accordingly, after elapse of 25 years i.e. long time, the allegations for the above subject matter of the case are not related with deficiency in service and unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service u/s 12 of the C.P. Act does not arise. So, the case is not maintainable against only the Chief Manager of OP Bank.
The opposite party Bank also states that the subject matter and allegations as stated in the plaint are not at all true and correct, the concern S.T.D.R. no. 5350 dt. 11.4.1992 which matured on 15.2.1995 was misplaced by the complainant as and when he shifted the house is purely a baseless and concocted story and in the support of this statement, complainant failed to produce any document i.e. neither any G.D. entry nor any publication of notice in any news paper. For which it is not clear that the complainant may collect the money either himself or any other person on produce duplicate documents in the said Bank. But the opposite party bank authority is now trying to search out the status of the account if possible and the instant case arisen without lodging any police dairy for missing of said S.T.D.R. and or any request letter of the complainant within the statutory period. It is very complicated question of facts and law involving banking law and practice and procedure. Accordingly, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any allegations against the claim which is hopelessly barred by limitation.
The opposite party Bank further states that the complainant is not at all regular consumer after 20 years of an inoperative account since the date of issuing S.T.D.R. as mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act and as such he is not entitled to get any relief before this Ld. Forum and the complainant has failed to make appropriate parties and as such the petition is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties, Regional Manager and the General Manager, are related with such type of matter, and they are all necessary parties for adjudication of this complaint raised by the complainant and the statements made in the plaint is related with the missing of S.T.D.R. matter accordingly bank is very serious to take proper steps under banking norms as well as specially matter is very old one. Accordingly all the steps taken by the opposite party Bank in accordance with the law and as per terms of the S.T.D.R. signed by complainant at the time of opening said account in the year 1992, i.e. 26 year back.
The opposite party Bank further states that now in the matter of Fixed deposit, the present system of Bank under C.B.S., renewed that the said S.T.D.R. automatically further a period accordingly but in this old case, Bank authority paying interest as per guide lines of Reserve Bank of India and it is duty of the customer to produce the said F.D.R. on the date of Maturity for payment of matured amount after statutory period and in the instant case the complainant suppressed the fact and concealment of fact of lost of S.T.D.R and such suppression creating trouble after C.B.S of the Banking operation, which is now dealing with the public money and better service for public welfare. Accordingly, after elapse of long time, the allegations for the above subject matter of the case are not related with deficiency in service and unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service u/s 12 of C.P. Act, does not arise. So, the case is not maintainable against only the Chief Manager of opposite party bank.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is the replica of the complaint petition. Opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which is also the replica of written version.
Both sides filed written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during the passing of final order.
The argument as advanced by the advocates of the complainant & opposite party heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Sri Kanti Dutta is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the opposite party carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
1).Whether the Complainant Sri Kanti Dutta is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being a customer of the opposite party bank is maintaining a STDR account before the opposite party bank, so he is entitled to get service from the service provider i.e. opposite party bank as consumer.
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The complainant in his brief notes of argument stated that one term deposit being no. STD/5350 dt. 11.4.1992 issued by opposite party and the maturity of said term deposit was fixed on 15.2.1995 but the said term deposit was misplaced and subsequently found on the month of June, 2016. Then the complainant through letter dt.14.7.2016 requested the opposite party to encash the same but the opposite party pit no bid and complainant time and again sent representation in that regard but of no result. So, the complainant being aggrieved filed the instant complaint petition.
The case of the opposite party is that he is working as principal officer of respective branch and discharging his duties in official capacity according to the norms of the bank. The complainant failed to abide by the norms of bank for realization of matured value if it is lost. He should lodge general diary in local P.S. on the relevant time and to file claim with affidavit and indemnity bond as per norms of bank. It is pertinent to mention that after elapsing the statutory period of 3 years the claim of the petitioner communicating the matter has been filed after more than 25 years. In the meantime, the entire banking system and procedure have been computerized from manual process and the account system has been totally changed and functioning through modern technology of C.B.S. As such the claim is barred by limitation. The opposite party further assailed that the instant case arisen without lodging any police diary for missing of said STDR. Neither any affidavit nor any publication in daily newspaper or any request letter of the petitioner to the bank authority within the statutory period of 3 years. So the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
After perusing the case record and hearing the arguments it is crystal clear that complainant namely, Kanti Dutta invested a sum of Rs.43,700/- in the name of Kanti Dutta and Swapan Mallick on 11.4.1992 for 36 months @ 13% per annum being STD no. 5350 before the opposite party and the maturity date has been fixed on 15.2.1995. According to the complaint petition, the complainant misplaced the said receipt. So, he could not claim the maturity value within the stipulated date in the year 1995. When he found the misplaced receipt and informed the opposite party through letters time and again then the opposite party failed to trace out the fixed deposit of the complainant and tried to escape his liability on lame excuse. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the opposite party failed to settle the claim of the complainant inspite of getting the original receipt. So, the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint petition before this Forum praying directions as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. The complainant claimed the maturity value after a prolonged period of maturity as either they could not trace out the receipt in original or could not remember such investment. Getting the said document the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the matured value but the opposite party refused the claim of the complainant owing to failure on the part of the complainant to approach the opposite party Bank within a considerable period as the banking system has totally been computerized since 2006 with the implementation of CBS so they could not maintain the manual register till date.
Facts remain that the opposite party could not trace out the investment of the complainant in the computerized account system. So, he could not settle the claim of the complainant. The opposite party bank vide its letter dt. 28.8.2018 informed this complainant referring the complaint case in the matter of nonpayment of STDR maturity proceeds through its Ld. Advocate stating that the said STDR being no. 5350 was opened on 11.4.1992, during which the bank functioned in manual register system. Subsequently, the branch was migrated to bank master system and then further to the present core banking solutions since 2006. During the process of migration no unclaimed amounts were found and all the existing accounts were migrated to the new core banking system successfully. The opposite party bank searched their bank master data archival and retrieval system by the name of the customer but the search did not yield the name of said Kanti Dutta which confirms that no such STDR was migrated to the bank master system and the STDR account was closed before migration to bank master system. Lastly, the opposite party submits that said STDR account has already been closed and the amount has already been claimed by the customer before migration to core banking solution on 11th December, 2006.
But there is no conclusive proof in the hand of opposite party in respect of disbursing the matured value to the complainants. So we may hold that the matured value of the complainants is yet to be disbursed by the opposite party as the original receipt is the hand of the complainants. The opposite party bank searched their bank master data archival and retrieval system by the name of the customer but the search did not yield the name of said Kanti Dutta which confirms that no such STDR was migrated to the bank master system. But it is not clear that the STDR account was closed before migration to bank master system. Not only that the opposite party could not put forward the receipt from the ledger to the CBS as a result he/they could not trace out the name of this complainant during searching. As such the claim of the complainant is deserved to be allowed with cost and interest. The opposite party cannot escape from its liability to disburse the matured value alongwith interest till date.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainants has abled to prove his case and the Opposite Party bank is liable to pay compensation for mental pain and agony of the complainant.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.44 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with a litigation cost of Rs.6,000/-.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.64,145/- with interest @10% p.a. from the date of maturity on 15.02.1995 till the realization within 45 days from the date of this order.
As interest is given so they is no question to allow compensation for mental pain & agony separately.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
