Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

Brief fact of this case:-  This case has been filed U/s. 35 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant is the customer of Canara Bank Serampore Branch.  The bank manager of said Canara bank proposed to the complainant to get up a locker volt.  The complainant accepted the bank manager proposal after few months passed, after that the said bank manager proposed the complainant.  If the complainant avail the bank locker facility then the lockrer giver must taking a jiban nibas LIC policy.  The complainant in this situation seen no other alternative way signed the one Jiban Nibas LIC policy papers and started the policy vide no.0074587014.  The complainant husband at that very time invested 70,000/- in the said Canara bank transfer the said fixed deposit money in the account of said canara bank pass book of  the complainant  account without any permission of fixed depositor.  This news (this type of illegal activities of the bank) the complainant inform the bank manager by an application on dated 5.12.2019 and informed that the standing instruction be need to withdraw the complainant all the transaction by way to cheque and requested to bank manager to return back Rs.70000/- of the complainant husband fixed deposit account.  The bank manager of canara bank Serampore branch engaged some Souren Sen to proposed complainant to sign second Jiban Nibas policy but the complainant not to agree the proposal of  Souren Sen.  But he repeatedly requested the complainant by way of some mischief acting, as where some threat some request and some acting for accepted the proposal.  But the complainant not to agree for signed the 2^nd Jiban Nibas LIC policy as a result Mr. Sen said to the complainant if the complainant not signed to 2^nd policy papers.  Then the complainant 1^st policy deposited money would be forfeited and also the locker volt shall be closed forever.  In this critical situation the complainant seen there is no other alternative.  She bound to sign the open 2^nd LIC policy.  At the time of signed the 2^nd Jiban nibas policy said Mr. Sen it is only five years terms period maturity policy.  But the complainant now found that the second Jiban Nibas LIC policy is maturity period more than five years.  The complainant now facing very much Economical problem.  It is very hard to beard the two LIC policy, MIS payment.  As a result the complainant several time by requesting by application letter to Canara Bank Manager to resolve the problem and stop the two LIC policy and return back the all deposited money with interest.  But the manager of canara bank has not taken intentionally any action. The complainant further applied the Chief General Manager of Canara Bank and department of “Ombudsman” to resolve the matter and stop the LIC policy but all in vain.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to return all deposit money with interest and to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as litigation cost.

In this case the op inspite of receiving notice have not appeared and even after getting 45 days statutory time limit have not file written version and so this District Commission has heard this case ex parte.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

           The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

           Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by them.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration  are  clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

     Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties inspite of receiving notice have not filed any W/V and also have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Serampore, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. It has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  is very important and according to the provision of Section 69 complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus on close examination of the pleadings of the complainant it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law.

     All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.

           The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

           For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the petitioner of this case.

           On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and on close compare of the documents filed by complainant it appears that the complainant by way of giving oral and documentary evidence has proved his case in respect of all the issues and the evidence given by the complainant remains unchallenged as the op has not adduced any evidence and files any documents. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence given by the complainant side. The evidence given by the complainant side goes to show that he has proved the fact that the complainant has provided/ deposited Rs. 1,40,000/- in two phases in Jiban Nibas Policy of LIC through op but inspite of submitting prayer for refunding the said amount the op has not refunded the above noted amount to the complainant and for that reason the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case.

Thus all the points of consideration adopted in this case are decided in favour of the complainant side.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 44 of 2022 be and the same is decreed exparte against op.

It is held that op is liable and responsible to refund Rs. 1,40,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case.

Opposite party is directed to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of this order otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.

           In the event of nonpayment/ non compliance of the above noted direction the opposite party is also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.

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 and necessary action.

           The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.