- Shreya Malik of
Flat No.-12, Dutta Super Market,
Akhan Bazar, Chinsurah,
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712101, W.B.….complainant
Versus
- The Manager,
Bandhan Bank, 31, Chowringhee Road,
- The Manager,
Bandhan Bank Ltd.
Head Office DN-32,
Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091
- The Manager,
Bandhan Bank,
Pipulpata Branch, P.S. Pipulpati,
Chinsurah, Hooghly-712103
- The Manager,
Bandhan Bank, Konnagar Branch,
Konnagar, P.S. Uttarpara ,
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712225.….opposite parties
MR. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
-
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
Dtd. 25.04.2023
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant consumer case filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 emanates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of the alleged denial of issuance of the required certificate on completion of a course called ‘Nextgen Banker Programme’ conducted by the OP Bank.
However, it will be worth mentioning that in the instant petition there are four OPs belonging to the same organization i.e. Bandhan Bank Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as the OP Bank collectively).
The fact of the case is that the complainant in December 2016 applied for a job oriented programme arranged by the OP under the name ’Bandhan Bank Nextgen Banker Programme’
On being selected, the complainant was asked to attend the counseling cum admission process scheduled to be held in Kolkata on 17.02.17.
Reportedly, to arrange the course fees of Rs.4,02,500/- the complainant applied for an ’Education loan’ of Rs.3,77,500/-. Balance Rs.25,000/- is claimed to have been paid by the complainant herself by way of account payee cheque to the OP in their Konnagar Branch on 17.02.17.
However, the loan was sanctioned by the OP bank and the course was completed by the complainant.
At this very point, the complainant expresses her grievance over the issue that in spite of completion of the course, no certificate relating to the course was issued by the OP.
In next few paragraphs of the complaint petition the Complainant narrates where she was deputed for apprenticeship, her dissatisfaction over the nature of the apprenticeship, her final place of posting at Mukundapur, Kolkata-700099, her displeasure over the place of posting and the nature of assignment, her request to the OP Bank for a posting within 10 KM from her residence, alleged threatening by ‘some staff’ of the OP Bank and finally her ‘termination’ from the job.
From the attitude shown by the OP Bank and from the treatment meted out to her, she was of the opinion that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the OP Bank’s part.
Thus, the complainant approaches to this Commission by filing the complaint petition and prays for imposition of direction upon the OP Bank to issue the certificate related to the ‘Nextgen Banker Programme’, pay Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation for her harassment and pay further Rs.1,00,000/-towards litigation cost.
The complainant approached to the OP Bank for participating in the ‘Nextgen Banker Programme’ which was as good as a foundational level programme for making future banking professionals and she had to pay a consideration price for the same. Hence the complainant may be treated as a consumer in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act.
The declared address of the complainant is within the district of Hooghly.The declared addresses of at least two opposite parties’ offices are within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
Thus, so far as the instant case is concerned, this District Commission has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
However, the OP Bank contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument in which they denied almost all the allegations leveled against them.
The OP Bank in their written version raised the issue that as the dispute involves detail investigation and evidence including electronic evidence and therefore this forum does not have jurisdiction to enter into the complex question of facts which require examination of evidence in detail.
The OP Bank has not clarified that what sort of detail investigation and what type of electronic evidence is needed to proceed in this case.
However, this queer proposition of the OP deserves to be brushed aside as, each case filed in this forum requires investigation, examination and evidence and the instant case is in no way different and intricate than the other consumer case generally filed before this forum. The instant case obviously being a consumer case is subject to summary trial.
The OP Bank points out that even after offering a job in the said bank, the complainant refrained from attending office since 31.03.2018.
Besides, the complainant allegedly defaulted/failed in making payment towards the loan taken from the bank and the bank was compelled to issue notice demanding the repayment of the outstanding amount. It is further alleged that in spite of repeated persuasion, even through legal notice by the Bank, the complainant preferred to remain defaulter.
Decision with reasons:- Materials on records are perused.
The complainant underwent the course under the title ‘Nextgen Banker Programme’ organized by the OP and the major part of the course fees was paid taking loan from the OP Bank itself. Now the complainant alleges that the loan giving process was ‘not crystal clear’ and some conditions were hidden. However this issue is not clarified in detail and not corroborated by supporting documents viz. copy of loan agreement and other allied documents. Moreover while taking the loan the complainant had to sign and accept the loan agreement and it is a natural presumption that the complainant consciously signed the loan agreement on perusal of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The complainant does not even utter a single word regarding the status of the repayment of the loan.
The complainant has failed to produce any evidence that she was threatened and warned of dire consequences by the staff of the OP Bank.
Now it should be clear once and for all that there are certain issues in the instant case in which this District Commission is not supposed to intervene. Issues like the particular assignment to be allocated and place of posting to be fixed on completion of the course and apprenticeship are absolute prerogative of the OP Bank. This Commission cannot be expected to impose any arbitrary and ludicrous direction upon the OP Bank in this regard. The complainant cannot use this Commission as a tool to manage a particular type of assignment and a place of posting as per her choice.
However, she is definitely entitled to get a course completion certificate from the OP Bank. There may be the only deficiency of service on the OP Bank’s part if the said certificate is not issued till date.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.168/2018 is allowed on contest but in part.
The OP Bank (OP 1 in particular) is directed to ensure issuance of the relevant course completion certificate to the complainant within thirty days from the date of this order if not already issued.
However there is no order as to costs.
In case of non-compliance of this order within the stipulated date as mentioned in this order, the opposite parties will be jointly liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards 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 acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.
