SRI NILAKANTHA PANDA, PRESIDENT

                The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s – 12 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read as U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019 of the new Act (here-in-after called as the “C.P. Act - 2019”), alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the Manager, Uco Bank, Ada Branch, Simulia and OP No.2 is the Zonal Manager, Uco Bank, Balasore. That, as per the complainant’s petition the cause of action arose on the data / day following the date of maturity of the deposit scheme, i.e. on dated 05/08/2009. 

                The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 04/08/2000, the father of the complainant opened a Recurring Deposit with the OP No – 1, in his name i.e. “Master Guddu”, while he was a minor and was not named in official record, as named these days, bearing A/c No.548/108/2000 @ Rs.600.00 per month for a period of 108 months under Lakhapati Yojana which was to be matured on 04/08/2009. Subsequently, his name was officially recorded as “Sri Rupam Panda” instead of Master Guddu in lieu of the change of his name, which was updated in the school certificate, Aadhar card so also in Election Voter identity card. In the meantime his father was transferred to a distant place and thereafter suffered from cardiac arrest and got operated, as a result he was under trauma. However, his father deposited 84 monthly instalments in the said RD account amounting to Rs.50, 400.00. It is further stated that his father has lastly deposited Rs.600.00 on 12/06/2007. But due to financial hardship, he could not able to deposit any amount nor has approached the OP No.1 in the matter. That apart, OP No.1 has never intimated the complainant nor to his father, either to continue the deposit amounts or has intimated to take back the due maturity amount at any point of time. Thereafter, the complainant had approached the OP No.1 and orally requested to release his maturity amount against the deposits made, but the OP No.1 deferred the matter on false pretext to produce different documents. The complainant used to peruse his study, for which he could not have time to meet the OP No.1 time and again. But the OP No.1 did not extend their hand in the matter, for which the payment which was due to be released in favour of the complainant became idle with the OP No.1. Lastly, on 17/12/2018, the complainant made a complaint before the OP No.1 with a copy to OP No.2, reminder on 23/01/2019 to OP No.1 with a copy to OP No.2 and subsequent reminder on 07/02/2019 to OP No.1 and a copy to OP No.2 requesting them to release the maturity value with appropriate interest accumulated against his RD account. As the complainant has not received any information from them, on 19/02/2019, paid a visited OP No.2 personally and ventilated his grievance, but that went in vain.

                Thus, finding no other way out, the complainant was constrained to file this case with the prayer, as prayed for in his complaint petition. Hence, this case.

                That to substantiate the case, the complainant has relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-

1. Photocopy of application for payment dated 17/12/2018.
2. Photocopy of application for payment dated 23/01/2019.
3. Photocopy of application for payment dated 07/02/2019.
4. Photocopy of application for payment dated 19/02/s2019.
5. Photocopy of RD pass book bearing A/c No.548/108/2000.
6. Photocopy of pass book showing deposited amount.
7. Copy of request letter to OP No -1, for release of fund.
8. Original Affidavit of Complainant & his father sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Simulia, Balasore, that “Mater Guddu” and “Sri Rupam Panda”, is one and same person.
9. Copy of high School Certificate.
10. Copy of Aadhaar Card
11. Copy of Voter Identity Card.
12. Copy of PAN Card.

                As it Substantiated from the case record that notices were issued against both the Ops and both the Ops have received the notices, but they did not choose to appear in this case, for which both the Ops were set ex parte.

                In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the Complainant is a Consumer or not?

(ii)         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

(iii)        Whether this consumer case is maintainable?

(iv)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(v)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(vi)        To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

                That, as the OPs are set ex-parte, for their non-appearance; hence relying upon the documents as submitted by the complainant, this commission proceeds for a best judgement order, basing upon the merit of the documents / statements as submitted by the instant complainant.

                First of all it is to be determined as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not. That from the averments of the pleadings and document produced on behalf of the complainant vide Annexure-5, it is clear that the father of the complainant had opened one RD Account in the name of the complainant bearing No.548/108/2000 with OP No.1 and Annexure-6 shows that a sum of Rs.600.00 per month has been deposited in the said account till 12/06/2007. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant is not entitled to be a consumer.

                Before delve into the merits of the case, it is required to be decided as to whether the complainant has any cause of action to file the case and whether the case is maintainable or not. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 04/08/2000, the father of the complainant had opened a Recurring Deposit account in the name of the complainant namely Master Guddu bearing A/c No.548/108/2000 and it was agreed that Rs.600.00 per month is to be deposited for a period of 108 months under Lakhapati Yojana in OP No.1 branch, which was to be matured on 04/08/2009. It is further urged that subsequently, the name of the complainant was corrected as “Sri Rupam Panda” instead of “Master Guddu” in lieu of the change of his name in the school certificate, Aadhar card so also in Election voter identity card.

                That, due to transfer of complainant’s father to a remote place and thereafter suffering from cardiac arrest, father of the complainant remained under trauma, along with it and for financial hardships, he could not be able to continue depositing monthly instalments till end, but however the father of the complainant had deposited 84 monthly instalments in the said RD account amounting to Rs.50, 400.00.

                That, in the meantime the RD account became matured, but the OP No.1 has never intimated the complainant nor his father to receive the maturity amount at any point of time. Thus, on his own accord, the complainant had approached the OP No.1 and verbally requested him to release his maturity amount, but the OP No.1 deferred the matter. At that time, as the complainant was pursuing his study, he could not meet the OP No.1 frequently and the OP No.1 has also did not extend its hand to release the maturity amount, which was due to be released in favour of the complainant and the amount remained idle & un-productive with the OP No.1. So, the complainant requested the Ops vide Annexure-1 to 4 to release the maturity value with appropriate interest accumulated against his RD account. But, the Ops did not pay any heed to it. Being aggrieved, the complainant personally met with OP No.2 on 19/02/2019 and ventilated his grievance, but all the efforts went in vain. On the other hand, neither the Ops have appeared nor filed any written version to defend / support their stand in this case. Thus, the testimony of the complainant remains unchallenged. That going through the above discussions, it is held that the complainant has valid cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable with the purview of the C.P. Act.

                Now this commission proceed to examine, whether there is any “deficiency in service” on the part of the Ops and as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for or not. In the above scenario, learned counsel for the complainant has advanced his submission that the father of the complainant appropriately deposited 84 monthly instalments (Out of 108 Instalments) @ Rs.600.00 per month in the said RD account standing in the name of the complainant bearing A/c No.548/108/2000, amounting to Rs.50,400.00 (vide Annexure-6) and in the mean time the aforesaid RD account became matured, but the Ops did not release the matured amount with interest in favour of the complainant in spite of several requests and reminders (vide Annexure-1 to 4) and the said amount is still with OP No.1. It is further argued that, on being unable to get any solution from OP No -1, even though the complainant had personally met with OP No.2, the matter could not be solved. In the present case, the Ops have not preferred to appear nor filed their written submission / version to defend their stand in this case matter. So, the unchallenged testimony of the complainant can be used against the Ops. From the above discussions and taking into account the submissions advanced on behalf of the complainant and considering the documents produced by the complainant, this Commission is of the considered view that “deficiency in service” is attributed against both the Ops.

                Hence, upon travelling through the substances, as aforesaid and described circumstances, safely leads this Commission to arrive at unanimous conclusion that there is “gross deficiency” on both the part of the OPs and all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for loss incurred on the part of the complainant.

                So, now upon careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record vis-a-vis submission made by complainant, this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that the OPs have failed to adjudicate their dispute before the Commission. There is no solution arrived by the O.Ps for the loss sustained / suffered by the Complainant incurring out of deficiency on the part of OPs, which legally termed as “deficiency-in-service” by the O.Ps. Therefore, the complainant is reserves the right to be entitled to get the relief as sought for. Hence, it is ordered -

O   R   D   E   R

                Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the Complaint Petition of the instant Consumer bears merit and hence allowed on ex-party / without contest against both the O.Ps. Both the O.Ps No. 1 & 2, are hereby severally and jointly set liable for its deficiency of service.

                That, both the OPs are hereby directed to release the sum actually deposited in the impugned RD Account, i.e. Rs 50, 400/-, along with interest @09.00%, from the day following the date of maturity (05/08/2009), till date of release of the sum, to the complainant, against his amended name, i.e. “Sri Rupam Panda”, within a period of 30 days from receipt of this order.

                That, in addition to the above, the OPs are hereby directed to pay to complainant, a sum of Rs 20, 000/- &  Rs 15, 000/- as compensation and litigation fee respectively, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days from receipt of this order. 

                That, delay in any manner, what so ever, for compliance of this order, for both the OPs, shall carry fine of Rs 500/-, per day, payable by the defaulter OP/s to the complainant.

                In case of failure by any of the O.Ps to comply the order within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the same amount from the O.Ps as per prevailing law.

                Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 17^th day of July, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.