Shri Govind Singh S/O Shri Anant Singh, Resident of House No.14 Dalda Colony, Chowk-Bazar Solan, H.P.


… Complainant.
Versus

Bhagat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Solan through its Branch Manager Solan District Solan.

…Opposite Party.

Coram

Shri Pritam Singh (District Judge) President.
Mr. Varinder Thakur, Member (Male)
Ms. Aruna Sharma, Member (Female)
………………………………………………………………………
For the complainant: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Satya Narayan, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Vijay Attri, Advocate


O R D E R:
Pritam Singh (District Judge) President: - This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was having saving bank account with the OP-Bhagat Urban Co-operative Bank at Solan which was opened by him many years ago. But, due to non-transaction it became inoperative and when he approached the OP-Bank and made request for reviving the same, his request was not acceded. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OP-Bank.


2. The complaint is resisted by OP-Bank who took some preliminary objection regarding maintainability of complaint. On merits, they alleged that the complainant did not operate the saving bank account and it was kept inoperative for so many years despite the fact that the cheque book had been issued to him and as per rules, the minimum balance of Rs.300/- was required to be kept in account in case of issuance of cheque but the complainant did not keep the aforesaid amount in saving bank account and ultimately due to non-operation of the saving bank account by the complainant for long period, his saving bank account was closed in the month of September, 1995. As such there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. Thereafter, the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim/counter claim.


3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.


4. It may be stated that undisputedly the complainant was having saving bank account with the OP-Bank at Solan opened by him many years ago. But due to non-transaction for long period it became inoperative and could not be revived and no benefits accrued were given to him. According to the OP-Bank, the complainant did not operate the saving bank account which was kept in operative for so many years despite the fact that the cheque book had been issued to him and as per rules, the minimum balance of Rs.300/- was required to be kept in case of issuance of cheque book. But, the complainant did not keep the aforesaid amount in saving bank account. As such, due to non-operation of the saving account by the complainant, his saving bank account was closed in September 1995 and it cannot be reopened now at this belated stage. They also admitted that the complainant approached them on 01.11.2007 and made request for revival of his saving bank account, but his request could not be acceded as his saving bank account had already been closed by them in September 1995 for want of transaction for many years.


5. Pertinent to state that at the time of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute the fact of issuance of cheque book by OP-Bank to the complainant at the time when he opened his saving bank account. According to the OP-Bank the minimum balance of Rs.300/- was required to be kept in saving bank account by holder of account. However, nothing has been brought on record by the complainant to establish that he was having minimum balance of Rs.300/- at the time when he stopped transaction and kept his saving bank account inoperative. The complainant has also not assigned any reason as to whey he kept his saving bank account inoperative for the last so many years and why he did not surrender his cheque book in favour of the OP-Bank during the period when he kept his saving bank account inoperative. As the saving bank account of the complainant has been closed by the OP-Bank in September, 1995 which cannot be revived at this belated stage. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the OP-Bank is not guilty of rendering deficient service to complainant. It was due to the negligence of the complainant that his saving bank account was closed by OP much earlier in September, 1995, whereas this complaint is filed by the complainant in March, 2008 which otherwise appears hopelessly time barred and is not maintainable.


6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this complaint and it being merit less is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. No order as to the costs.