State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/84



DATE OF FILING : 23.02.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.07.2009


APPELLANT



Sri Sukumar Hazra

S/o Late Bato Krishna Hazra

Jhalda Station Road

P.O. Jhalda,

P.S. Jhalda, Dist. Purulia.



RESPONDENTS



1. The Branch Manager

Purulia Central Co-operative Bank Limited

Jhalda Branch, P.O. & P.S. Jhalda,

Dist. Purulia.

2. Purulia Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

represented by its Chief Executive Officer

P.O. & P.S. Jhalda, Dist. Purulia.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY: Mr. F.Bandyapadhyay, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgement dt. 23.11.07 passed by the Purulia District Consumer Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 66 of 2005 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint in part on contest directing the Ops/Respondents to pay Rs. 44,650/- to the complainant/Appellant together with Rs. 1000/- as compensation and Rs. 1500/- towards litigation cost.

The complainant’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant was the holder of 10 Samabai Sanchayani Certificates issued by the Ops under Fixed Deposit Scheme. From time to time those certificates were reinvested after maturity. There was dispute as regards timely renewal of the certificates and missing of some certificates from the custody of the Ops. Due to such negligence, misconduct and deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops the complainant suffered pecuniary loss and hence, the petition of complaint praying for further interest of Rs. 2,50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.

The Ops/Bank contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material allegations of the complaint contending inter alia that the certificates were not produced in time after maturity and that the OP/Bank has dealt with the certificates as per existing Banking norms and rules. In the absence of any irregularity or deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops/Bank, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Ld. District Forum after considering the cases of respective parties has disposed of the case on contest in part as mentioned above.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the petition of complaint as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted before us on behalf of the Respondents that in the present case the complainant did not produce the certificates in time after maturity. Nor there was any written instruction from the complainant as to how the certificates would be dealt with. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, in the absence of any specific/written instruction the Respondents were under no obligation to reinvest the certificates on maturity. The allegation put forward at the instance of the Appellant is baseless and not tenable under the law and that the question of enhancement of interest, compensation and litigation cost does not arise at all. The Appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Respondent and have gone through the pleadings of the parties, materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in their case the Appellant put forward a case that the Ld. District Forum has erred in interest calculation. The Ld. Advocate while drawing our attention to the calculation sheet has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has calculated Rs. 1,02,968.31 less towards interest calculation and that the compensation and litigation cost be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. We have perused the calculation sheet furnished on behalf of the Appellant and find much substance in the submissions put forward on behalf of interest calculation only. In our view, the Ld. District Forum has erred in interest calculation to the tune of Rs. 1,02,968.31, say Rs. 1,02,968.00 only, and the impugned judgement be modified accordingly, i.e. instead of Rs. 44,650/-, Rs. 1,02,968.00 should be incorporated, which sum shall be paid by the Ops/Respondents to the Complainant/Appellant. The other portion of the impugned judgement shall remain unaltered.

In the result, the Appeal succeeds in part.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest without cost. The impugned judgement stands modified viz. instead of Rs. 44,650.00 (forty four thousand six hundred fifty only), Rs. 1,02,968.00 (Rupees one lakh two thousand nine hundred sixty eight only) should be incorporated, which sum shall be paid by the Ops to the complainant. The other portion of the judgement remain unaltered. The Ops are directed to comply with the direction within two months from the date of communication of this order, failing which simple interest @ 9% (nine per cent) per annum shall be imposed on the decretal dues.



MEMBER MEMBER