District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/77/2023
(Date of Filing:-10.05.2023)
- Sri Pulak Majhi,
Dubirbhari, P.O. Karicha, P.S. Polba, Dist. Hooghly.
Presently residing at Sagar Dutta Lane
P.O. and P.S. Chinsurah, District:- Hooghly Pin:- 712101
Versus
- The Manager, Bandhan Bank Ltd.,
Vivekananda Road, Pipulpati More
P.O. Pipulpati, P.S. Chinsurah,
Dist. Hooghly, Pin:- 712103. ….Opposite Party
Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
-
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 emanates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of the treatment meted out by Bandhan Bank Ltd., Chinsurah Branch.
The fact of the case as depicted by the Complainant in his complaint petition, after filtering out the unnecessary and somewhat irrelevant details, may be summarized as follows.
Reportedly, the complainant, deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the OP Bank with a purpose of opening a Term Deposit A/C. Accordingly, the OP Bank issued a TD advice in favour of the Complainant, the maturity of which was scheduled on 14.05.23 and the Complainant was supposed to receive Rs.43021/- on maturity of the said TD.
However just after stating this, the Complainant, in the next paragraph of the petition says contradicting himself that ‘the fixed deposit bond’ reflects the date of maturity as 18.08.2023.
However, on 19.08.22, the complainant received a sms informing him, that theentire maturity value of the said TD had been debited from his A/C.
As the Complainant was out of station, his wife, the nominee of the fixed deposit, having received an alert from her husband rushed to the Bank and met the Branch Manager on the same date.
It is claimed that the original TD advice is lying with the Complainant
Allegedly the OP Bank authority even after being intimated about the entire issue remained indifferent and did not extend any sort of cooperation.
At this juncture, on being advised by Sri Majhi, the Complainant’s wife approached to the cyber cell of the Chinsurah Police Authority and lodged a complaint on 20.08.22 i.e. within 24 hours of the incident.
The Complainant claims to have made several contacts with the OP Bank and made repeated persuasion to get his TD back but he got cold shouldered by the Bank authority.
It is further claimed that the Complainant’s bank statement of the material period reflects certain suspicious transactions on 18.08.2022 and 19.08.2022.
Subsequently, the Complainant sent a communication in this regard to Chandannagar Police Commissionerate on 29.03.2023 and also a legal notice to the OP bank on 03.04.2023. But all these attempts proved to be futile exercises.
On the other hand, the OP Bank allegedly suspended all operations in respect of another account of the Complainant.
The Complainant here points out that the responsibility of safety and security in respect of a particular bank account lies with the concerned Bank authority.
However finding no other alternative the Complainant approaches to this Commission seeking direction upon the opposite party to pay back the maturity proceeds of the TD amounting to Rs.43,021/-, to produce proper and satisfactory explanation with regard to the suspicious transactions, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and further Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.
The Complainant along with the complaint petition has annexed photocopies of bank statement of the material period, the fixed deposit advice, legal notice sent to the OP, postal receipt and postal track report thereof, initial GD lodged with Chinsurah P.S., other communications made to the concerned Police authorities,
Evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant is almost replica of the complaint petition.
Issues for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reason
Issue No. 1
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the OP Bank was the service provider in the instant case.Thus complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
Issue No. 2
Both the complainant and the opposite partyare resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issue No. 3 and 4
Now whether there was any deficiency of service on the OP Bank’s part and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief will be discussed in the concluding part of this order as the issues are mutually interrelated.
This is to be mentioned that in spite of proper service of notice, the OP bank preferred to keep themselves away from the case proceedings. Resultantly the case ran thoroughly ex parte against the OP Bank.
Decision with reasons
Materials on records are perused. It transpires from the photocopy of the TD advice that the date of deposit of the principle amount was 14.06.2018 and the date of maturity was 14.05.2023 whereas the Complainant in his petition states that the deposit was made on 14.05.2018.
The Complainant further mentions in the fourth paragraph that the ‘Fixed Deposit Bond’ reflects the date of maturity as 18.08.2023.
But no such date is mentioned in the body of the FD advice.
The Complainant claims that the sms received by him on 19.08.2022 showed that the maturity amount was debited from his account. But the bank statement shows that an amount of Rs.39,111/- was withdrawn on 18.08.2022 which was a premature one. The amount appears to have been deposited in the Complainant’s savings account on that day. However on the same date an amount of Rs.50,000/- was transferred to one Arjun Das. But on 19.08.2022 again the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in the Complainant’s account. On the same date there were three more transactions viz. one withdrawal of Rs.49,900/-, another deposit of Rs.55,000/- and again another withdrawal of Rs.49,999/- and these were all IMPS (Immediate Payment Sevice) transactions. Applicable fees for IMPS transactions also were deducted by the Bank. The Complainant has hinted at some suspicious transactions but the suspicious transactions have not been specified by the Complainant in his petition.
The Complainant does not appear to have made any written communication in this regard to the OP Bank after detection of the so-called suspicious transactions. The legal notice was sent only on 03.04.2023.
The legal notice says that an amount of Rs.43,000/- was debited from the Complainant’s account but there is no such amount is reflected in the bank statement to have been debited from the Complainant’s account.
It is not clear that during the period from 19.08.2022 to 03.04.2023, in which mode persuasions were made with the Bank authority.
The Complainant claims to have received a sms on 19.08.2022 intimating that the maturity amount has been debited from his account on 18.08.2022.
On the contrary, in the initial GD made to the Police authority on 20.08.2022, the wife of the Complainant who was the sole nominee of the fixed deposit stated that she received a sms from a number unknown to her, asking her to send a message to some other number and after sending the message she found the amount of Rs.43,000/- to have been transferred from the Bank A/C held in the name of the Complainant.
However, the Commission has not been enlightened about the contents of the received message and the sent message.
On the other hand, the Complainant while sending a communication to the IC, Chinsurah P.S. states that the unauthorized debit of an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of one Sri Arjun Das came to his knowledge when he approached to the Bank on 18.08.2022 for premature withdrawal of the said FD because of his financial requirement.
Firstly the maturity value of the FD if withdrawn prior to the scheduled date of maturity cannot be RS.50,000/-.
Secondly the Complainant contradicts himself once by saying in the complaint petition that he was out of station on the fateful day and then again informing the Police authority that he approached to the Bank authority on 18.08.2022 for premature withdrawal.
Thus the credibility of the complaint petition becomes grossly questionable.
So far as the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and BNA are concerned, the term ‘contributory fraud’ has been used repeatedly indicating at the OP Bank officials’ involvement in the so-called contributory fraud. However in the legal notice, the term ‘technical glitch’ has been used in respect of the questionable transactions.
Now the Commission opines that the terms ‘contributory fraud’ and ‘technical glitch’ cannot be applied simultaneously in respect of the ‘suspicious transactions’.
Last but not the least, The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Hon’ble AVM J.Rajendra, held that matters involving fraud, forgery, and cheating in financial transactions are challenging to resolve through the summary proceedings of the Consumer Protection Act and are more suitable for adjudication in a civil court.
In the case of Sheenam Raheja vs. State Bank of India, Hon’ble NCDRC observed that ‘the matter clearly has issues of a criminal nature involved warranting a proper investigation under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. Such issues cannot be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act or in a Consumer Court, which is required to dispose of matters through summary proceedings.’
In view of the above and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this District Commission is of the view that firstly, the representations filed by the Complainant at different points of time are self contradictory and full of inconsistencies and secondly the jurisdiction of this Commission to try the instant case is questionable.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.77/2023 is dismissedex parte. However there is no order as to costs. 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.
