Hon’ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
The complaint case in short is that he had deposited Rs. 26,786/- on 22.10.1997 as reinvest plan with the United Bank of India Cooch Behar Branch i.e. O.P. No.2 vide No. CSP/ A029553 A/C No. 4580/36/97 in the name of himself and Gour Bhabani Banik and Mina Banik with effect from 02.04.1995. He also got the investment certificate from O.P. No.2 Bank. The rate of interest was 12%. Gour Bhabani Banik died leaving behind her son Sankhadip Banik doughter Mina Banik and the petitioner. According to petitioner he verbally requested the O.P. No.2 Bank to pay his reinvested money but the Bank authority did not respond about his claim. The aforesaid acts of the Bank amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank. So, the petitioner claimed Rs. 2,92,790/- as the amount of his investment with interest Rs. 70,000/- towards mental pain and agony Rs. 40,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation costs.
O.Ps did not file their written versions within the stipulated time. So, by an order, they were debarred from filing written version in connection with this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have perused the written complaint and evidence filed on behalf of the Complainant and also heard the argument made on behalf of both the parties.
Though the O.P.s could not file their written versions and evidence, the Complainant has to prove his case on merits. The Complainant filed the reinvestment certificate in the name of the Complainant and others with the United Bank of India and two photo copies of two letters one addressed to O.P. No.1 and the other one addressed to the First appellate authority RTI, Cooch Behar, Office of District Magistrate Cooch Behar. These two letters are in connection with his grievances with the Bank in connection with the Bank.
Now, the Complainant contended that he had deposited the amount of Rs. 26,786/- with the O.P. No.2 Bank in the name of himself and two others. He requested the Bank authority for the maturity amount but the Bank authority did not comply with his request. So, he alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.
Now turning our attention to the reinvestment certificate we find that the said certificate was issued on 22.10.1997 (with effect from 02.04.1997) for Rs. 26,786/- at the rate of interest of 12%. The said investment was made for a period of 36 months and the date of maturity was 02.04.1998. So, nowhere in the said certificate which is the only crucial document filed by the Complainant, it has been shown that after the date of maturity on 02.04.1998, the said investment was again reinvested. Though in the reverse page it is found the name of the Complainant is there in hand writing and also mentioned as renewed for 108 months and in red ink 9 years are written. But there is no signature and seal of any Bank official. That apart, it is also not the case of the complainant that he had later reinvested the amount for 108 months. The petition of complaint is absolutely silent about this. So, the writings on the reverse page raises suspicion as to its genuineness and cannot at all be acted upon.
Usually, this type of investment is made for a particular period and on maturity, the said investment may again be reinvested and on such a reinvestment being made a noting with seal and signature of Bank official is required to be made on the certificate on production thereof to the Bank authority. Here this certificate does not reveal at all that the investment was again reinvested on any subsequent date after 02.04.1998. Nor any new certificate was issued on reinvestment.
The Complainant also failed to state clearly as to the period or periods for which subsequently the said deposit was reinvested if at all he had reinvested later. In such a situation we are compelled to hold that the Complainant failed to state his case in a clear way which would be adequately understandable.
In fact, from the case of the Complainant it appears that he does not know what was his actual case and it further appears from his conduct that he tried to conceal the actual state of affairs and in doing so, he confused himself and in consequence, he could not present his case in a clear and unambiguous way. This itself is sufficient for dismissal of this case.
Moreover, the date of maturity of the said investment is found to be on 02.04.1998 and the instant case was filed on 19.07.2018 i.e. after long more than 20 years from the date of the cause of action, the instant case is hopelessly barred by limitation and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for.
Thus, the issues are decided against the Complainant.
This case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
it is Ordered
That the present Case No. CC/44/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule. The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
