Date of filing: 23.11.2017 Date of disposal: 15.05.2023
Complainant: 1.Tipu Biswas, W/o- Pradip Biswas, resident of Uchalan, Madhavdihi, P.O. - Uchalan, P.S. - Madhabdihi, Dist. Burdwan, Pin -713427.
Opposite Party: 1. UCO Bank, Uchalan Branch Manager, having its office at Uchalan, Madhabdihi, P.O. - Uchalan, P.S. - Madhabdihi, Dist. Burdwan, 713427
2. Hero Fincorp Ltd., represented by its Direcotr, having its office at 9, Community Centre, Basant Lok-Vasant Vihar, Delhi-110057.
Present:
Mr. Md. Muizzuddeen Hon’ble President.
Ms. Lipika Ghosh Hon’ble Member.
Mr. Atanu Kumar Dutta Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant: Suvro Chakraborty Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: Chiranjib Samanta Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: Ex Parte
F I N A L O R D E R
On 23.11.2017, the complainant-Tipu Biswas has filed an application under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against the O.Ps.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant has savings Bank Account bearing No.10100100000124 with the O.P. No.1. After updating the bank account pass book in the month of June, 2016 he came to know that on 08.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 an amount of Rs.2,224/-(each) has been deducted from her account on the head of “ECS/TP Hero Fincrop”. He also came to learn that an amount of Rs.76/- each has been deducted on 08.06.016 and 15.06.2016 on account of ECS Rejection charge. It is pertinent to note that from 08.04.2016 to 15.06.2016 an amount of Rs. 4,600/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant. He further submitted that thereafter the complainant reach to the O.P. No.1 and intimated about the matter. As per instruction of the officials of the O.P. No.1, the complainant submitted written request to O.P. No.1 on 17.06.2016 by requesting them to inspect the matter and refund the amount. But very surprisingly the O.P. No.1 did not take any step to solve the matter. On 08.07.2016, 16.07.2016 and 08.08.2016, the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 deducted Rs.76/-for two times and Rs.73.35/- on the head ECS Rejection Charge. In this context it is pertinent to mention that the complainant never made any hypothecation agreement with the O.P. No.2 and there is no relation in between complainant and O.P. No.2. In spite of that the O.P. No.2 charged the ECS from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant lying with the O.P. No.1. For this conducts of the O.Ps, the complainant suffered huge mental pain, agony and harassment along with financial loss. Then he applied before the Consumer Affairs Department but did not get any relief. Thus the O.Ps committed deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice.
Upon this background, the complainant prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to refund a amount of Rs.4,600/- to the complainant with 18 % interest from 08.04.2015 to till date of realization along with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost 20,000/- .
As the O.P. No.2 did not file written version within the statutory period for filing the same on 18.03.2019, the case has been fixed for ex parte hearing against the O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No.1 has contested the case by filing written version having all the material allegations contending, inter alia, that the complainant has neither any locus standi nor any cause of action to file the case and that the complaint is not at all maintainable in its present form and prayer and that the complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party and misjoinder of unnecessary party and that the complaint is barred by law of limitation and that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such.
The specific case of the O.P. No.1 is that it is a fact that complainant has a savings bank account with this O.P. No.1, UCO Bank, Uchalan Branch, Burdwan (O.P. No.1) and the said account is a joint account with her husband Sri Pradip Biswas and it is also a fact that the name of Sri Pradip Biswas is the first account holder of this account and as the joint account holder of this account, Sri Pradip Biswas did not file the Consumer Complaint case with the complainant and as such the instant complaint case is barred by non-joinder of necessary party. It is further stated that the allegation made by the complainant that O.P. No.1 debited the amount but actually it is a false allegation as no amount was deducted by the O.P. No.1 and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the end of the O.P. No.1 and as such this O.P. No.1 cannot at all be liable to compensate any amount of compensation to the complainant. It is also stated by the O.P. No.1 that on scrutiny it is found that due to negligence on the part of Axis Bank Ltd. and mandated by the Axis Bank Ltd., the office of the UCO Bank , Service Branch, Mumbai debited the amount of Rs.2,224/- dated 08.04.2016[ECS], Rs.2,224/- dated 09.05.2016 [ECS], Rs.76/- on 08.06.2016 [ECS Cancellation Charge], Rs.76/- on 15.06.2016[ECS Cancellation Charge], Rs.76/- on 08.07.2016 [ECS Cancellation Charge], Rs.76/- on 16.07.2016 [ECS Cancellation Charge] & Rs.73.35/-paisa on 08.08.2016 [ECS Cancellation Charge], and the UCO Bank , Service Branch Office, Mumbai communicated several times to Axis Bank Ltd. for providing the mandates on the basis of which the said Axis Bank Ltd. has initiated the ECS Transaction but the said Axis Bank Ltd. did not communicate or show any mandates to the UCO Bank, Service Branch Office, Mumbai and if any negligence and unfair trade practice done, it is solely done by the Axis Bank Ltd. and the real picture cannot be come unless and until Axis Bank Ltd. will be the party of this case but the complainant did not made party to Axis Bank Ltd. Accordingly, the case is laible to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.
The O.P. No.1 further stated that the alleged claim of the complainant from the O.P. No.1 is untenable, misconceived and vexatious one. The allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the O.P. No.1 has made in the instant complaint are wholly misconceived, groundless, false and untenable in law, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the matter under reference and as such the complainant is not entitled to get relief from O.P. No.1.
D e c i s i o n w i t h R e a s o n s
In order to prove the case, the complainant-Tipu Biswas has filed evidence-on-affidavit. The O.P. No.1 filed questionnaire. The complainant filed reply to the said questionnaire. The O.P. did not file any evidence-on-affidavit. Complainant filed Xerox copies of documents. The complainant also filed W.N.A. No documentary evidence has been filed by the O.P. No.1 and even he did not file any W.N.A.
From the evidence-on-affidavit of the complainant, it is found that she corroborated the fact of the case depicted in her complaint. But in support of the case of the O.P. as stated in W/V did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. For not filing evidence, the case of the O.P. cannot be taken into consideration at all. Mere filing of W/V is not a proof of his case at all and mere filing of W/V cannot destroy the case of the complainant and established his case also. On the other hand, the complainant has proved her case by way of giving evidence and from the documentary evidence that is Xerox copies of Pass Book as filed by the complainant; it is found that the bank account-in-question is in the name of Pradip Biswas & Tipu Biswas i.e., joint account and Pradip Biswas is the husband of Tipu Biswas who is the complainant and the pass book has been issued by UCO Bank, Uchalan Branch and the pass book that is statement of account as described in the pass book issued by the O.P. reflected the fact of the case of the complainant. The cross examination to the evidence of complainant has not sake the evidence of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant also proved her case by the documentary evidence and the said transactions made by the O.P. without the knowledge of the complainant. This conducts of the O.Ps clearly shows the deficiency in service and negligent on his part.
Having considered the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and materials-on-record as well as the above made discussion, we are of opinion that the complainant has been able to prove her case and the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and negligent. Due to the act of the O.Ps, the complainant has been compelled to file this case on being harassed and suffered from mental pain and agony. Accordingly the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost. As a result the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that this Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest of O.P. No.1 and ex parte against O.P. No.2 but without any cost. Both the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 are liable jointly and severally. They are directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,600/- to the complainant. They are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Both O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 are directed to pay those amount to the complainant jointly or severally either by A/c. payee cheque or to credit the sum into the account of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest @15 % per month till realization.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
Member Member
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
