DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 97  of   2017

 

Sri Bikram Saha,

S/O- Sri Sreepati Saha,

Dhaleswar Road No. 3, Nutan Pally,

P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala,

West Tripura. ........…...Complainant.

 

            -VERSUS-

 

     1. The Managing Director,

Bandhan Bank Ltd.(Head Office),

DN-32, Sector-V, Salt Lake City,

Kolkata- 700 091, West Bengal.

 

      2. Sri Sudip Chakraborty,

Cluster Head of Bandhan Bank Ltd.,

Agartala Branch, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura.

 

      3. Sri Mrityunjoy Roy,

Branch Manager of Bandhan Bank Ltd.,

Agarala Branch, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura.

 

      4. Sri Tirthankar Deb,

of Bandhan Bank Ltd., 

Agartala Branch, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura. …............. Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bhupal Ch. Biswas,

  Advocate.   

 

For the O.Ps : Mrs. Pushpita Chakraborty,

  Advocate.   

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  06.04.2018.

J U D G M E N T  

   This case arises on the petition filed by one Bikram Saha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he was maintaining Current Account in Bandhan Bank since 06.01.16. The account was maintaining in the name of 'Parul Library' with internet banking, NEFT facility. He was paying payment service charges and other charges as applicable. On 17.11.16 without issuing any reason O.P. Bandhan Bank authority denied NEFT service facility to him. He wanted to remit Rs.20,000/- through NEFT from his account but the Bandhan Bank Official did not allow the NEFT for that day. As such he could not pay the payee and suffered huge loss. O.P. No.4 Tirthankar Deb, Bandhan Bank Official refused to receive the cheque for NEFT. The matter was brought to the notice of O.P. No.3, Branch  Manager but no relief was given. Petitioner lost goodwill and was harassed. Claimed Rs.90,000/- as compensation for the damage done by the O.P.

 

2. O.P. Bandhan Bank Official appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that this complaint before this District Forum is not maintainable. NEFT request as made by the complainant on 17.11.16 but it was found that the amount was not available in the account of the petitioner. Complainant issued a cheque in favour of Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. for the amount of Rs.25,000/- so that  cheque was cleared. On 17.11.16  one Premik Lal Das deposited cash amount Rs.20,000/- at 3.57 PM in the current account of the complainant. But NEFT application request was not made after deposit of Rs.20,000/-. On 18.11.16 one cheque was deposited and it was cleared in favour of 'Bharati Bhawan' for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. NEFT request was processed when the fund was available.  And it was sent to the beneficiary on 18.11.16. There was no deficiency of service by the Bandhan Bank and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 

 

3. On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the petition is maintainable and the O.P. Bank had deficiency of service?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced Representation of Bandhan Bank, copy of Bank Statement, Representations, Letter, Trade Mark and Trade License, Exhibit -1 Series. 

5. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of 2 witnesses, they are petitioner himself and one Premik Lal Das.  

 

6. O.P. on the other hand produced the application for Fund Transfer along with cheque for Rs.20,000/-, Statement of Account, Deposit Slip, Cheque dated 10.11.16, Deposit slip dt. 18.11.16, Application for Fund Transfer dt. 17.11.16 along with cheque of Rs.20,000/- , Statement of Account. 

7. O.P. also produced the statement on affidavit of Sudip Chakraborty, Cluster Head of Bandhan Bank.

8. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

Findings and decision:

9. We have gone through the copy of cheque dt. 17.11.16 produced and signed by Bikram Saha. The cheque was in the name of Book Emporium Bandhan Bank Ltd. along with the application for Fund Transfer. 

 

10. We have gone through the statement of account against the account of the petitioner. On 17.11.16, Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn and the remaining balance was only Rs.412.80 then the request for NEFT Rs.20,000/- to Book Emporium was not possible. So, rightly the Bandhan Bank could not remit the amount. It is found that on the same date i.e., on 17.11.16 Rs.20,000/- was deposited and available balance was Rs.20,412/-. Again on the next date on 18.11.16, Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn. It was not by way of remitting the amount as petitioner made request for NEFT on 2nd occasion. 

 

11. We have gone through the copy of the cheque dated 15.11.16. Rs.25,000/- was paid to Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. From the deposit slip it is found that Rs.20,000/- cash was deposited on 17.11.16 and 2 cheques were also issued on 10.11.16 for Rs.20,000/- in favour of Bharati Bhawan. As those cheques were submitted earlier so the Bandhan Bank officials honored those cheques as and when funds were available. 

 

12. Bandhan Bank Officials authority raised the question on maintainability. Primafacie the complainant alleged that the request for NEFT was not entertained by the Bandhan Bank. Such activity might comes under the purview of Consumer Forum as there is allegation of deficiency of service. Bandhan Bank is the service provider receiving charges for rendering service. So the case is maintainable in its present form. 

 

13. From the Account Statement it is found that many transactions were made by the complainant in the year 2016. He  issued cheques in different times and fund withdrawn in the name of many persons. From the account statement it is found that some time balance was not available and for insufficient fund the cheque could not honored. Such things happened on 19.03.16, 20.03.16, 06.07.16 and 07.07.16 and many other times. 

 

14. P.W.2, Premik Lal Das who deposited the amount stated that he deposited Rs.20,000//- cash in the Bandhan Bank after Tiffin hour. Whereas petitioner stated that he submitted the prayer for  NEFT on 17.11.16 for remitting the amount to Book Emporium. He issued the cheque for Rs.20,000/- in favour of Book Emporium. But that amount was not available as petitioner earlier issued cheque in favour of Rachana Sagar Pvt. Ltd. on 15.11.16 and Bharati Bhavan on 10.11.16 for satisfying those cheque the fund was exhausted and  only Rs.412/- was available in the fund. But petitioner made request for remitting Rs.20,000/- to Book Emporium which was not possible. Therefore, rightly Bandhan Bank official denied the request for remitting the amount. Thereafter, P.W.2, Premiklal Das deposited the cash Rs.20,000/-  in the late hours. But it did not accompany any fresh request for NEFT. However, the amount was remitted on the next date when request of NEFT made & fund was available. There was no deficiency of service at all by the Bandhan Bank Officials.

 

15. We have gone through the statement of account, cheque deposit slip and found that O.P. had no fault at all. The cash amount was deposited in late hours. So, NEFT was done on the next date when the fresh request was made. The fact as revealed from the statement of account supposed that petitioner issued cheque several times when fund were found not available. Bandhan Bank officials were not supposed to satisfy those cheques or NEFT request if fund not available. There was no deficiency of service by Bandhan Bank official at all. Petitioner therefore, is not entitled to get any compensation. 

 

16. In view of our above findings over the points, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation and there was no deficiency of service by the Bandhan Bank officials. The petition is dismissed without any cost.    

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA