MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            This Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed by the Complainant assailing the judgment and order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 224 of 2011, dismissing the Complaint showing the ground that there is no ‘deficiency of service’.

          The facts of the case, as appearing from the materials on records, are, in short, that on 7.10.2009 Rs. 12,000/- were transferred by Kirtinagar Branch, New Delhi through ‘inter-sol’ by crediting the amount to S.B.Account No. 0020100022592 of UCO Bank Officers’ Federation, India Exchange Place (Retail Branch), Kolkata debiting from S.B.Account No. 1022010007213 of UCO Bank Officers’ Association (Delhi State) maintained at Rajendra Place Branch, New Delhi.  Thereupon, the Complainant came to know from the Bank Statement that on 22.10.2009 Rs. 12,000/- were debited from the Account No. 0020100022592 without ‘authorisation/mandate’ from the authorized operator of the account concerned.  After noticing such event, the Complainant wrote a letter dated 27.10.2009 to the A.G.M., India Exchange Place (Retail Branch), Kolkata with copies to the higher authorities, but to no avail, excepting receiving a reply-letter dated 12.11.2009 by the Chief Manager, India Exchange Place (Retail Branch), Kolkata informing the Complainant that the disputed debit of Rs. 12,000/- was made by the Kirtinagar Branch, New Delhi, to rectify the inadvertent mistake.  With this factual background, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned order dismissing the Complaint as mentioned at the outset.  Aggrieved by such order the Complainant moved the instant Appeal.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant, in the very beginning, assailing the impugned judgment and order, submits that the impugned judgment and order was passed ignoring the established ‘judicial principle, decorum and discipline’ as the Ld. Member, who passed the impugned judgment and order on behalf of the Bench, was absent on the date of final hearing of the Complaint concerned, i.e. 8.3.2013, as it appears from the Order No. 17 dated 8.3.2013 of the Ld. District Forum concerned.

          The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Ld. Member, who passed the impugned judgment and order even being absent on the date of final hearing, did not at all consider the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Saraswati Co-operative Bank Ltd.  Vs. Mr. Dean Leslie Roy, reported in I (2008) CPJ 163 (NC), wherein it was held that in S.B.Account debit entry without consent or due authorization of the customer is a deficiency in bank-service.

          The Ld. Advocate also submits that the impugned judgment and order accompanied by dissenting view of one Ld. Member of the Bench concerned also reveals that the impugned judgment and order is replete with contradictory observations.

          The Ld. Advocate finally concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order by the learned absentee-Member be set aside and the dissenting order passed by the Ld. Lady Member also be set aside.

          On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents/OPs, filing BNA, submits that as the debit entry in dispute was not related to withdrawal of money but related to rectification of an inadvertent mistake of credit entry in the account concerned, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No. 2/OP No.2 and hence, the Ld. District Forum rightly passed the order impugned.

          The Ld. Advocate, however, has not denied the technical lapse in the impugned judgment and order which was passed by the learned absentee-Member as pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant.

          We have heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

          The daily order No. 17 dated 8.3.2013 of the Ld. District Forum concerned pertaining to the final hearing of the Complaint Case concerned, as available from the LCR on the records, clearly exhibits the absence of the Ld. Member who wrote the impugned judgment and order on behalf of the Bench.

                   As per the essential procedure for maintaining judicial discipline and proper delivey of justice, the Ld. Member who was absent on the date of final hearing cannot assume authority in respect of the case concerned. Any order passed by a Ld.  Member who was absent on the date of final hearing renders the Ld. Member coram non judice. 

          The aforesaid facts, evidence on records and submissions lead us to conclude that the impugned judgment and order was passed beyond the authority of the Ld. Member who was absent on the date of final hearing and hence, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.

          In the result, the instant Appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Ld. District Forum for proper adjudication afresh on merits.  

          All the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 23.09.2016.