Today is fixed for final order (Ex parte).  On 18.03.2021the case was heard ex parte.

The instant case was instituted on the basis of an application filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant which was registered as C.C No:- 57/2019 in this Commission.

 The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complainant that the complainant is the savings account holder of the O.P.No-1 Branch being Account No:-20015639543. The complainant have a minor daughter, namely, Avilasa Raha, who was aged about 10 years, and was the student of class V on the time of filing of this case before this Commission, as per instruction of her school authority, the complainant along with his minor daughter went to the O.P.No-1 Branch at Kaliyaganj for opening the minor daughter’s savings account. The complainant also stated that, after reaching to the bank for the purpose of opening his minor daughter savings account, the Accountant of the Kaliyaganj Branch (S.B.I Kaliyaganj) told to the complainant that, the process for opening of new account fully maintained by the C.S.P Booth of this bank and the said C.S.P Booth is situated outside of the O.P.No-1 Branch building. The complainant then met with the O.P.No-1 and explained all the facts but the O.P.No-1 also told him the same words which the Accountant previously told him on that day.

The complainant also stated in his petition that, after that he further came to the official staff of that bank and told him that they should hang all the procedure and instructions for opening new account on their display board or notice board for the consumer awareness, after that, the staff of O.P.No-1 loudly declared that they are not bound to do that, and he repeatedly misbehaved with the complainant.

The complainant also stated that the O.P.No-1 forced him for opening his minor daughter’s new account on their C.S.P Booth and the complainant was bound to pay Rs.100/-(One Hundred) for the purpose of opening of new account of his minor daughter vide account No:-38433726541, and at that time complainant declared that he have no require any ATM Card for his daughter account. After few days O.P.No-1 sent an ATM Card to the complainant in respect of his minor daughter account, the complainant then met with the O.P.No-1, but he stated to complainant that the ATM Card is mandatory for his daughter’s account and if there is no cash transaction with this account, then the bank will close the said account. On 21.09.2019 the complainant lodged a written application to the O.P / bank, narrated all the facts regarding the said minor daughter’s account which he opened on C.S.P Booth.

Under the above facts and circumstances, the complainant prays before the Commission to direct the O.Ps to refund the account opening charges of Rs.100/-(One Hundred) which was taken illegally by C.S.P Booth from the complainant, and to direct the O.P.No-1, hanging the process of opening of new account method to their display board in the bank building and also prays for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh) form the O.Ps for the misbehavior, misconduct, mental stress, agony and harassment and also the litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand).

The O.P.No-2 did not appear before the Commission to contest the case. O.P.No-1 & 3 appeared before the Commission and filed their written version denying all the material allegations contending inert alia that the case is barred by law of limitation and there was no cause of action for the case and the case is mis conceived and the case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The specific case of the O.P.No-1 & 3 is that, the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 hereinafter complainant also signed as Registrar-in-Charge, D.C.D.R.F dated 14.11.2019, Uttar Dinajpur and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily on that basis.

The case of the O.Ps is also that the date of hearing fixed by the Commission, the complainant was on duty in the official work, the complainant was on duty at the time of hearing which is contradictory to justice, un just and un fair. The further case of the O.Ps is that the complainant has no locusstandai to initiate the present proceeding. The transaction entered between the parties to the above dispute is a matter of “Customer Service Point” and complainant cannot claim any relief from the authority. The complainant had deposited account opening charges of Rs.100/- (One Hundred) but he did not produce before the Commission any documents or money receipt etc. For consideration of account opening and a such is barred from moving this Hon’ble Commission for the alleged defect / deficiency etc.

The further case of the O.Ps is the complainant has not filed the written or online complaint against C.S.P before Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kaliyaganj, A.D.B Branch. The complainant did not report at “CSP” any dispute at C.S.P can be taken up within the concerned C.S.P, as well as the complainant was not identified the person who misbehaved with him. The complainant has accepted the service towards account opening etc without protest and the present complaint is merely an afterthought. All the submission made by the complainant is absolutely wrong and is emphatically denied.

Upon this background the O.Ps claims the dismissal of the case.

D e c i s i o n W i t h R e a s o n s:

In order to prove the case the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1. He also filed documents which is kept with the record but not exhibited.

On the date of the hearing / evidence the O.Ps were absent before the Commission as well as no steps was taken by them. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P was also absent on repeated calls and after that the case was did proceed ex parte against the O.Ps.

It is further mentioned that on the prayer of both sides the case record was sent to the “LOK ADALAT” (National) on 14/12/2019 for settlement by way of compromise. On the “LOK ADALAT” the case was not settled down as because the O.P.No-1 was absent. After that the case record was returned back before the Commission and was fixed for final hearing. During the hearing of this case the complainant could not produce any direct or in direct evidence in support of his claim. On scrutiny we can say that the complainant failed to prove his claim that the bank has taken Rs.100/-(One Hundred) for the purpose of opening the new account.

Regarding the Second Point of prayer of the complainant we are of the opinion that, bank should display all the require procedure to be followed by a consumer for opening a new savings bank account as most of the consumers are not well aware about the banking process.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d:

That the case be and the same is allowed partly (Ex parte) against the O.Ps but without any cost.

The bank is directed to display the new account procedure within the bank premises in a prominent place.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.