MRS. FIROZA KHATOON, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this case against opposite parties/United Commercial Bank, Hare Street Branch and Ramnagar Branch on allegation that he had an account with UCO Bank, Ramnagar Branch under P.S. Baruipur, District- 24 Parganas (S). Due to shifting of office and residence to Kolkata, he could not operate the said account for the last 10 years. On enquiry, opposite party no.2/ UCO Bank, Ramnagar Branch informed him that there was no balance in his account. After repeated requests through email, the bank informed in the year 2001 that there was balance of Rs.7,123/- (Rupees seven thousand one hundred twenty three) only in his account. Thereafter, the complainant informed opposite party no.2 to send the money to him through demand draft at his Kolkata address but the bank did not pay any heed to it. On demand of opposite parties, the complainant sent Pan card, Aadhaar card and the duly filled up form through speed post on 24.12.2021 but the opposite parties have not paid the money deposited in his account. In such circumstances, the complainant has been compelled to file the instant case on 20.05.2022 against the opposite parties. According to the complainant, such act of the opposite parties tantamount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant prayed for exemplary compensation and cost.
Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party no.1 has not appeared in this case.
Opposite party no.2 by filing written version stated that the complainant on 13.01.2001 opened a savings bank account bearing account no.06740100008753 with UCO Bank, Ramnagar Branch. The said account remained inactive for more than 10 years due to which the amount of money remained in the account was transferred to DEAF account (Depositor Education and Awareness Fund) on 29.05.2015 in accordance to the RBI rules. It is further stated that after long 10 years the complainant requested the bank through email to close the said savings account and the return the balance amount to him by cheque or demand draft. The bank informed him that since the account was inoperative for long years, the balance amount has been transferred to DEAF account and certain procedural formalities are required before the amount could be transferred back to him. The complainant was also asked to submit certain documents to enable the bank to transfer the balance amount of Rs.7,123/- (Rupees seven thousand one hundred twenty three) only to him. As the bank undertook to overhaul the Finacle system in all the computers, it could not do its work or check emails for some time and accordingly the complainant was informed about the situation. Opposite party no.2 admitted that there was inadvertent delay to address the issue for the aforementioned reason. On 21.07.2022 the bank issued a demand draft being no.1801025 for sum of Rs.8,369/- (7,123+1,246.52 (interest) and sent to the complainant by post and closed his savings account. The opposite party no.2 prays for dismissal of the case as the amount with interest has already been paid to the complainant.
Points for determination
- Is the complainant a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
Point nos. 1 and 2
For the sake of brevity and convenience both the points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
On scrutiny of the record we find that the complainant is conducting his case in person. The complainant is a retired service holder.
It appears vide order no.8 dated 26.06.2023 that the complainant has filed an application under caption “APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXEMPLARY COMPENSATION SUMMARY GIST OF LAPSE AS WELL AS WICKED CONDUCT OF O.P.” along with photocopies of documents. The President and Members of the Commission offered the complainant to submit his evidence in this case but the complainant refused to submit his evidence. The above mentioned application filed by the complainant on 26.06.2023 was not submitted on solemn affirmation. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination this application filed by the complainant on 26.06.2023 can be treated as evidence in terms of section 38(9)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The opposite party no.2 submitted evidence through its senior manager and alleged that the account of the complainant remained inoperative for more than 10 years as such in accordance to RBI rules the amount of money remained in the said account was transferred to DEAF account (Depositor Education and Awareness Fund) on 29.09.2015. The complainant on 16.09.2021 requested the bank through email to close the savings and return the balance amount to him by cheque or demand draft. The opposite party no.2 informed the complainant by email that since the said account was inoperative for long years the amount had been transferred to DEAF account and certain procedural formalities were required before the amount could be transferred back to him. Opposite party no.2 on 24.12.2021 also asked for certain documents to be submitted by the complainant to enable the bank to transfer the balance amount in his favour. Opposite party no.2 candidly admits that due to inadvertent mistake an email was sent to the complainant stating that there was ‘0’ (zero) balance in his account. It is further stated that the bank issued a demand draft being no.1801025 dated 21.07.2022 for sum of Rs.8,369.52 including interest and sent it to the complainant through post. It is categorically stated by opposite party no.2 that during pendency of this case, on 05.08.2022 the opposite party no.2 paid a sum of Rs. 8,369.52 (including interest) to the complainant through National Electronic Funds Transfer (NEFT) successfully bearing UTR no.UCBAH 22217708857. Due to procedural matter there was delay of 4 to 6 months only for making such payment to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed.
The complainant in course of argument admitted that he had received the principal amount of Rs.7,123/- (Rupees seven thousand one hundred twenty three) only which was lying in his account along with interest of Rs.1,246.52 (Rupees one thousand two hundred forty six and fifty two paise) only as interest from opposite party no.2 through NEFT.
It is admitted fact that the complainant already received the principal amount along with interest to the tune of Rs.8,369.52 (Rupees eight thousand three hundred sixty nine and fifty two paise) only in his account through NEFT.
In a complaint case, the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to prove his/her case. In this case the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to prove that the allegations made by him in his complaint are true for which he suffered mental agony and loss.
To prove the case the complainant is required to file evidence in terms of section 38(9)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.
It is needless to reiterate that opportunity had been given to the complainant to file evidence in order to prove his case but he declined to avail such opportunity.
It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to establish his/her case independently by submitting and/or adducing cogent evidence and he/she cannot be allowed to take advantage of weakness in the case of the opposite party.
Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that a court cannot pronounce a judgment in a suit merely on the default of the defendant to file a written statement if the plaintiff does not prove his case. In other words, the burden of proof always lies upon the plaintiff to prove his own case which never shifts. Plaintiff cannot take advantage of weakness of the defendant.
Having considered the discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the complainant has failed to discharge his burden of proof to prove his case.
Therefore, both the points are decided against the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost.
Dictated by me
…....................
President
