In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.425/2010
1) M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd.
72/2, Saambhunath Pandit Street, Kolkata-25 ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) United Bank of India.
49/1A, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-26 ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 18 Dated 16/10/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant M/s. Sterling Pharmaceuticals Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. against the o.p. United Bank of India. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant on or about 31.3.1983 entrusted a sum of Rs.14,500/- in fixed deposits for 60 months with o.p. which in turn accepted the said sum of Rs.14,500/- from complainant and issued a fixed deposit receipt no.798448 dt.31.3.1983 and agreeing to return the said sum after its maturity after 60 months from the date of receipt along with the accrued interest.
Complainant obtained a loan from o.p. form of cash credit account. In course of time a dispute arose between complainant and o.p. regarding such loan account and o.p. ultimately approached the Kolkata Debt Recovery Tribunal – II vide case no.MA 21 of 2003 arising out of RP No.190 of 1997 in TA No.309 of 1995.
Further case of the complainant is that complainant bonafidely paid of the entire due of the o.p. to the tune of Rs.13 lakhs approximately towards full and final settlement. Complainant further stated that the entire business premises and/or the manufacturing unit of complainant was put under lock and key at the instance of o.p. by appointing a receiver through the tribunal. The ld. Receiver deposited the keys to the o.p. bank.
However, while taking repossession of he said premises from o.p. as per the order/direction of the ld. Tribunal, it was found that while the premises was lying with the custody of the o.p. bank , the manufacturing unit, officer of the complainant was totally ransacked by thieves and some miscreants turning the unit to a ruin. This incident could only occur due to utter negligence and lack of vigilance on the part of o.p. bank, which was absolutely callous and negligent in taking proper care of the security entrusted to it.
The aforesaid incident was reported to the ld. Tribunal and the Recovery Officer visited the said premises on 29.3.04 and filed a report interalia stating that the entire premises, manufacturing unit/office has been totally vandalized, destroyed and all the valuable were stolen. A series of complaint were duly lodged by complainant with the local policed station Kalighat recording the entire incident vide complaint dt.16.4.04, 4.7.06 and 6.7.06. Such complaints were within th ful knowledge of o.p. and it failed and neglected to lodge any FIR with the concerned police station.
The receiver pursuant to the order of the ld. Tribunal visited he said premises with the bank manager and complainant to carry out the order of the tribunal to give repossession of the premises to complainant but was unable to do so and lodged as would appear from the report dt.15.9.06 that the said premises was being occupied by a third party by breaking open the lock unauthorizedly while the premises was under the custody of o.p. A complaint was lodged to the Commissioner of Police as well DRT to the affect.
The particular FD No.798448 dt.31.3.83 kept with o.p. was not held as security and it was the duty of the bank to refund the said amount along with accrued interest suo moto to complainant. However, the bank failed and neglected to discharge its duty to that effect and concerned FD has not been paid till date.
Complainant by its notice dt.11.9.09, 12.4.10, 19.5.10 interalia called upon the bank to the pay the matured FD amount along with interest. But o.p. bank paid no heed to such notices and neglected and/or failed to reply to the same. Complainant further stated that the amount lying with the bank was used for its own wrongful gain. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Sole o.p. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case on the ground stating that complainant has got no cause of action to file the instant case and the instant case has been filed on frivolous ground and is liable to be rejected.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that there is no dispute on record as regards fixed deposit of Rs.14,500/- vide receipt no.798448 dt.31.3.83 and it is also seen from the record that there was no instruction on behalf of complainant to keep the said FD in lien as against any loan of cash credit account. It is also evidenced from the record that complainant made payment of Rs.13 lakhs towards full and final payment and we do not find any prior notice issued by o.p. in favour of complainant prior to locking and/or holding FD account referred to above and this act on the part of o.p. amounts to deficiency of service to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay maturity value of the FD no.798448 dt.31.3.1983 along with interest accrued thereon as per RBI guidelines within 45 days from the date of communication of this order and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
