West Bengal

Siliguri

20/S/2013

PRADIP KUMAR BASU, - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE CHIEF MANAGER, - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 20/S/2013.                  DATED : 24.03.2015.                 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER                : SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                      : PRADIP KUMAR BASU,  

                                                              S/O Late Poritosh Kumar Basu,

                                                              5/3, BaghaJatin Road, ‘Koyal Mansion’,

                                                              2^nd Floor (Western Side),

                                                              P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

O.P.            1.                 : THE CHIEF MANAGER,

                                                              State Bank of India,  

                                                              Hakimpara Branch, Pakurtala More,                                                                             

                                                              P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling,

                                                              PIN – 734 001.  

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Monojit Roy, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OP                                   : Sri Nilay Chakraborty, Advocate.

 

J U D G E M E N T

The case of the complainant is that he purchased three NSCs bearing Nos.582780, 582781 and 582782 each of Rs.10,000/-.  The matured value was Rs.60,000/- as on 11.02.2006.  The complainant purchased the NSCs from Patratu Post Office via Ramgarh, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.  The complainant was then living at Patratu.  He had a saving bank account at State Bank of India, Patratu, Jharkhand.  The complainant pledged his said three NSCs with the State bank of India, Patratu Branch against his said current account.  The complainant was transferred from Patratu to Siliguri.  The account was transferred from Patratu to Siliguri.  The complainant informed the bank when the NSCs

 

Contd.....P/2

-:2:-

 

 

became matured, but the bank did not take step.  Complainant against visited the State Bank of India and requested the bank to credit the matured value in his account.  The bank did not comply that.  On 23.02.2011 the complainant sent a letter dated 23.02.2011 to the OP requesting to credit that matured value with interest for last five years in his own account, but the OP did not comply it.  Thereafter, on 19.07.2011 the complainant again requested the OP for crediting of the matured value, but the same was not done.  Subsequently, in the month of December, 2011 bank informed the complainant regarding his inability to credit of the matured value of NSCs in the account of the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant met with OP on several occasions, but no result.  The complainant was compelled to run from pillar to post for last seven years out of no reason.  In the way the complainant is deprived to use his money as per his desire.  Accordingly, this complainant has been lodged before this Forum.

The OP bank has filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant.  The positive version is that the said three NSCs which had been purchased by the complainant from the Post Master, Patratu Post Office, that the correct date of maturity is on 22.02.2006 and not on 11.02.2006.  Further that the said three NSCs which have purchased by the complainant from the Post Master is such a type of account is non-transferable account.  The complainant is a bank official.  It was well within his knowledge.  The said post office is responsible to settle the matter.  It is also case of the OP that every possible effort have been given by the OP in order to settle the matter and the balance amount has been credited in the savings account of the complainant on account no.30165607843 on 04.05.2013.  It is further case of the OP that the said post master from whom the complainant has been purchased three NSCs which have been misplaced

 

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

 

 

by the Post Master, Patratu Post Office, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.  It is also the case of the OP that incident of misplacement of NSCs is within the knowledge of the complainant.  It is case of the OP that every possible report has been taken by the OP to satisfy the prayer of the complainant.  All the delay has been made by the Post Master, Patratu Post Office.  The OP is not liable.  The said Post Master is a necessary party in this case.  The OP also made defence in para no.13 that the OP has credited the balance amount in the account of the complainant being savings bank account no. 30165607843 on 04.05.2013 together with all interest accrued and the same has been intimated to the complainant through letter dated 04.05.2013.  Accordingly, the case may be dismissed with cost.

Complainant has filed some documents.

1.       Letter dated 23.02.2011 addressed to the OP by the complainant. 

2.       Letter to the OP by the complainant dated 23.02.2011.

3.       Consigner copy dated 19.07.2011.

4.       Medical documents of Woodlands Hospital dated 11.10.10, 18.07.2011, 15.03.12.

 

OP did not file any documents.

Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief.

OP has also filed affidavit-in-chief.

The complainant has stated his case in the affidavit. 

OP has stated his defence in the affidavit.

 

Point for decision

 

1.       Whether the OP is negligent to the complainant.

 

Decision with reason

 

The complainant’s case is encashment of some NSCs, which was

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

 

purchased by the complainant in the year 2006.  After purchase of NSCs, the complainant was transferred to Siliguri.  It is stated that the complainant deposited those NSCs to State Bank of India for encashment.  But waiting for some months, he did not get encashment value.  The manner of encashment of NSCs after its maturity only can be done by the rule of Post Office.  The complainant is a bank employee, but he did not take the way to apply the brain of State Bank of India, Siliguri.  Though it was not within jurisdiction and duty of the State Bank of India, yet the State Bank of India, Siliguri Branch made much effort and requested them for encashment and deposited the interest in the Account No.10231884470 after 11.02.2006 which was omitted by that Post Office.  To this regard, letter dated 23.02.2011 shows the means which was adopted by the bank.  So, the claim of the complainant that bank did not try the encashment cannot be relied upon.  So, the term deficiency of service for bank is not found. 

Further, the complainant purchased the NSCs from the said Post Office.  So, the presence of that Post Office is necessary for a clarification regarding the status of those NSCs on the date of filling this case. 

Accordingly, the case fails due to want of parte. 

Hence, it is 

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.20/S/2013 is dismissed on contest, but without cost.       

                                                    

 

                             -Member-                         -President-