West Bengal

Howrah

CC/13/245

SMT SUPRIY KARATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary, Kasundia Co-operative Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, Howrah – 711 101.
(033) 2638-0892; 0512 E-Mail:- confo-hw-wb@nic.in Fax: - (033) 2638-0892
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/245
 
1. SMT SUPRIY KARATI
Late Nemai Karati, 42/9, Brindabon Mullick Lane, Howrah – 711101
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Secretary, Kasundia Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
122/1, Swami Vivekananda Road, Howrah – 711101
2. Sudipta ( Bubai ) Kar, agent
7, Madhav Ghosh Lane,
Howrah – 711101
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K. Bhattacharya PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. P.K. Chatterjee MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

DATE OF FILING                    :      24-07-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      21-08-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     03-10-2013.

 

Smt. Supriya Karati,

late Nemai Karati, 42/9, Brindabon Mullick Lane, Howrah – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

 

-          Versus   -

 

1.         The Secretary, Kasundia Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

            122/1, Swami  Vivekananda Road,  Howrah – 711101.

 

 

2.         Sudipta ( Bubai ) Kar, agent,

7, Madhav Ghosh Lane, Howrah – 711101.-----------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

 

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

 

 

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

 

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

 

 

1.                  Complainant, Smt. Supriya Karati, has filed this instant petition U/S 12 of the 

C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) alleging deficiency in service against O.Ps.

 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that the complainant has maintained two accounts

with O.P. no. 1. One being  savings account having no. 4506 and another being daily account having no. 7603, complainant has  deposited Rs. 12,635/- and Rs. 24,300/- respectively, vide Annexures A & A1 & D1 & D2 O.P. no. 2 is the daily collection agent acting on behalf of O.P. no. 1. On 09-05-2013, complainant’s husband suddenly fell sick and was hospitalized but died on 10-05-2013 vide Annexure B. So, complainant wrote a letter to O.P. no. 1 on 15-05-2013 requesting them to sanction the total amount lying in her two accounts along with interest in order to utilize the said amount for the purpose of Shradha Ceremony of her husband which was to be held on 22-05-2013 vide Annexure ‘D’. But O.P. no. 1 paid no heed to her request. Again on 26-05-2013 she made the same request before O.P.no. 1, as after the sudden demise of her husband,  she was in earnest need of money. But O.P. no. 1 remained silent even without giving any reply to her letters dated 15-05-2013 & 26-05-2013 vide Annexures ‘C’ & ‘D’. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for a direction to be given upon the O.P. no. 1 to pay her total amount, so deposited in her account maintained with O.P. no. 1 along with interest, to pay an amount of  Rs. 5,000/- as compensation as well as Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment along with a litigation cost of Rs. 500/-.

 

3.                  Notices were served. But none appears on behalf of  O.Ps. So, the case heard

ex parte against O.Ps.  

 

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

 

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

 

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            Complainant has filed

her petition of complaint along with annexures sworn on affidavit. We all know that we use to deposit our excess amount to the bank with this hope that at the time of necessity, we will be able to utilize the same without any problem. We depose all our faith and confidence with the bank.  And bank is also duty bound to supply such amount at the time of our necessity. Here in this case, complainant lost her husband suddenly, she became quite helpless. Financially, she was depending on the prompt service to be rendered by the bank. But the bank showed severe negligence towards her. Even O.P. no. 1 did not care to reply her request letters. If this is the attitude of a bank, where people would go ? People would rely upon whom ? O.P. no. 1 should have considered her situation with all responsiveness. Their irresponsible attitude is nothing but gross negligence. O.P. no. 1 was supposed to give her own deposited amount. Complainant did not ask for any undue favour from O.P. no. 1. If, at the time of dying necessity, someone is not getting his/her own deposited amount, the spirit of making any savings would get totally frustrated. Because, even at the time of making any savings one has to sacrifice his/ her immediate desire for buying any goods or availing of any service. But O.P. no.1’s total inaction in this  regard caused severe mental agony and financial crisis to the complainant. Even after receiving notice of this Forum, o.p. no. 1 never appeared or filed any written version, which clearly shows that O.P. no. 1 has nothing to put forward in their favour. As a result, all the allegations of the complainant made out against O.P. no. 1 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged  testimony of the complainant. As the O.P.2 did everythinh on behalf of O.P.1, there is no deficiency in providing service on the part of O.P.2. O.P.2 deposited all collected money from the complainant with O.P.1. Accordingly, The case succeeds exparte against O.P.1 with cost and dismissed against O.P.2 without cost.

 

Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

 

           

      That the C. C. Case No.  245 of 2013 ( HDF 245 of 2013)  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P.1 

 

      That the  O.P1. is directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 24,300 + Rs 12,635/- = Rs. 36,935/- to the complainant within one month from this order.

 

      That the complainant do get an award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost.

 

      That the O.P1. is directed to pay the entire decretal amount of Rs. 42,935/- to the complainant within one month from this order  i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. 

 

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

       

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

 

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

 

                                                                   

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K. Bhattacharya]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. P.K. Chatterjee]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.