Tripura

StateCommission

A/17/2018

Sri. Bikram Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Bandhan Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Pradip Chakraborty, Ms. S. Debnath

28 May 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.17.2018

 

 

 

1. Sri Bikram Saha,

S/o Sri Sreepati Saha,

Resident of Dhaleswar, Road No.2,

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

District – West Tripura.

 

 

… … … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

1. The Managing Director,

Bandhan Bank Ltd.,

Head Office : DN-32, Sector-V,

Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091,

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.,

Agartala Branch, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura.

 

4. Sri Tirthankar Deb,

Bandhan Bank Ltd.,

Agartala Branch, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellant:                                           Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                                Ms. Puspita Chakraborti, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:                  28.05.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.C.C.97 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the appellant herein. 

2. Heard Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Ms. Puspita Chakraborti, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Bank).
3. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the order stage itself.   
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant filed one application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating, inter alia, that he was maintaining current account in Bandhan Bank Ltd. since 06.01.2016 in the name of ‘Parul Library' in which he is a proprietor with internet banking, NEFT facility. He was paying payment service charges and other charges as applicable. On 17.11.2016 without assigning any reason, the opposite parties 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. Opposite party no.4, Sri Tirthankar Deb, of Bandhan Bank Ltd., Agartala Branch refused to receive the cheque for NEFT. The matter was brought to the notice of opposite party no.3, Branch Manager, Bandhan Bank Ltd., Agartala Branch, but the opposite party no.3 did not heed to his grievance. As a result, the complainant lost goodwill and was harassed. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint petition claiming an amount of Rs.90,000/- as compensation.

5. Opposite parties, Bandhan Bank Officials appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In their written statement, they have stated that the complaint petition filed by the complainant before the learned District Forum is not maintainable. It is also stated that admittedly, the complainant made a request for NEFT on 17.11.2016, but while his request for NEFT was considered by the officials of the opposite parties, it was found that the amount for which the request for NEFT was made, was not available in his account. Complainant issued a cheque in favour of Rachna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. for the amount of Rs.25,000/- so that cheque was cleared. On 17.11.2016, one Premik Lal Das deposited cash amount of Rs.20,000/- at 03.57 p.m. in the current account of the complainant, but NEFT application request was not made after deposit of Rs.20,000/- i.e. when the amount was available in his account. On 18.11.2016, 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 18.11.2016. Thus, there was no deficiency of service by the Bandhan Bank and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned District Forum after going through the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record dismissed the complaint petition holding that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties Bandhan Bank Officials. As aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Forum, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal.
7. Mr. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum while passing the impugned judgment did not go through the bank records. Thus it committed error for which itself the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed. He further submits that NEFT request was made on 17.11.2016 and on that date itself, one Premik Lal Das deposited cash amount of Rs.20,000/- in the current account of the complainant, therefore, the Bank Authority ought to have accepted the request of the complainant for NEFT.
8. Ms. Chakraborti, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, Bank while supporting the impugned judgment submits that when the complainant has made request for remitting of Rs.20,000/- through NEFT, at that time required amount was not in his account to honour the request of NEFT. She further submits that admittedly, on 17.11.2016 one Premik Lal Das deposited cash amount Rs.20,000/- at 03.57 p.m. in the current account of the complainant, but the complainant did not make any request after deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- in his current account. So, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank Officials.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. We have also perused the Bank records from which it appears that admittedly, when the request was made by the complainant to the opposite parties, Bank for remitting an amount of Rs.20,000/- through NEFT, at that time, no sufficient money was there in his account to honour the request of NEFT. More so, after the deposit of Rs.20,000/- by one Premik Lal Das, P.W.2 he did not make any further request to the opposite parties, Bank Authority for remitting the aforesaid amount through NEFT. As such, there was no deficiency in service by the opposite parties, Bank Officials.    

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment. Hence, no interference is called for. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.