DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE  NO. 246/2012

           Date of Filing:                         Date of Admission:                               Date of Disposal:                

          26.03.2021                                  07.04.2021                                         30.11.2022

P R E S E N T              :-         Debasis Mukhopadhyay……………President

                                        :-      Smt. Monisha Shaw ………………. Member.

                                      :-        Sri Abhijit Basu…………………….Member

JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER

This is a complaint under Section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.

The complainant stated that the complainant opened a savings accounts No. 625035 in the post office of O.P. No.1. After computerization the account number changed to SB 8923104274. On 09.08.2009 the complainant surprisingly found that the deposited amount of the complainant has been mis-matched to the balance amount. Then O.P. No.1 by calculating from their ledger book upto 09.12.2013 made the balance as Rs. 1,13,017/-but in the computer it was not shown. The complainant by personal visit repeatedly before the O.P requested to correct the account fixing the balance amount of Rs. 1,13,017/- into the computer but the opposite parties failed to do so. On 15.05.2019 the complainant surprisingly found that the balance amount had been shown in the pass book of complainant amounting to Rs. 36417.50 instead of Rs. 1,13,017/-. Thus the amount of Rs. 76599.50 had not been shown in the account of the complainant. The complainant on 16.05.2019 gave a representation before the O.P. No.1 to correct balance amount in the computer but the O.P did not give any response. The complainant on25.07.2019 gave another representation but without any effect. On 09.11.2019 the complainant gave a reminder but nothing was done by the O.P. Then the complainant tried to mediate the dispute before the office of the Assistant Director, C.A. and F.B.P. but the opposite parties did not turn up. The complainant stated that it was an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant filed this case praying for a direction upon the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 77,000/- in the account of the complainant with interest, compensation and cost.

The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations of the complainant. The opposite parties contended that the case was not maintainable and it was hopelessly barred by limitation.The opposite parties stated that the actual ledger contains only one entry against the date 25.06.2008 regarding amount of Rs. 77,207/- although the photo copy of pass book is bearing  two entries of deposits of the said amount of Rs.77,207/- on 19.06.2008 and 25.06.2008. The O.Ps stated that the claim of refund of Rs. 77,000/- does not arise because of the fact that due to an entry of Rs. 77,207/- as was made by Fingapara PostOffice erroneously as a result of which the balance in the said pass book came to Rs. 1,13,017/- instead of Rs.21738.50 as on 13.11.2013. This erroneously noted balance of

 Contd/-2

C. C.  CASE  NO. 87/2021

:: 2 ::

amount of Rs. 1, 13,017/- as on 13.11.2013 was not entered in the official SB ledger in the R/O. Hence the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.

From the contention of the parties as per written complaint and written version it appears that the points for consideration in this case are whether the case is maintainable and is barred by limitation or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons

The Ld. Advocate for the complainant admitted that there was clear entry in the pass book amounting Rs. 1,13,017/- but subsequently during computerization the balance in the account became less in respect of an amount of Rs. 77,000/- and the complainant is entitled to get the corrected statement in the computerized account and the complainant was deprived of about Rs. 77,000/- due to mistake committed in the computer. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed since the amount of the pass book has to be relied upon instead of erroneous entry made by the computer.

The O.P submitted that two statement accounts i.e. one statement of account made by mistake and another correct statement of account are filed by the opposite parties and from such statement of accounts it is clear that one entry of Rs. 77,207/- was made erroneously on 19.06.2008, though the deposit was actually made on 25.06.2008 on which date the deposit was also shown in the account. He submitted that the complainant cannot take advantage of such mistake specially because it is public money and the public officers are accountable. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the case.

Considering the contentions of the parties as per written complaint and the written version and also the evidence on record and documents and submissions of both sides it is found that there is defence of mistake and it is a mistake of fact. such mistake of fact can be valid defence in avoiding liability and the complainant cannot take advantage of the mistake to enrich himself. When the O.P raises defence of mistake that an entry amount of Rs. 77,207/- was made erroneously on 19.06.2008 but actually payment of identical amount was correctly made on 25.06.2008, then the complainant has a duty to prove that he has actually made the deposit of such amount of Rs. 77,207/- twice on 19.06.2008 and 25.06.2008. But apart from the alleged mistaken entry in pass book the complainant has no other evidence to prove such identical deposit twice in close interval of five/six days.

Therefore, it is found that the complainant has failed to prove his case to the satisfaction of the commission. Moreover, the alleged entry of deposit was made long ago and therefore the cause of action arose more than statutory period of two years and accordingly this case is also barred by limitation as alleged by the O.P.

Accordingly, the issues are all decided in favour of the O.Ps and against the complainant.

Hence,

             It is Ordered

that the case is dismissed on contest agaist the O.Ps.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by me                      

President                                                                                                       President

Member                                                                                                         Member