Date of Filing: 29-09-2015 Date of Final Order: 03-08-2016
Sri Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, President.
The brief facts of the complaint as culled out from the record is that during the continuance of his service, the Complainant, Pradip Chakraborty had opened a Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account being No.SBI/COB/723, subsequently reassigned as PPF A/c. No.11324139150 to the O.P Bank, State Bank of India, Sagardighi Square Branch, Cooch Behar on 15/12/1999 and the Complainant continued the same till its maturity date i.e. 31/03/2015.
Subsequently, after maturity period, the Complainant went to the O.P Bank to withdraw the entire amount from his said PPF Account and he submitted the prescribed forms on 02/04/2015 to the O.P Bank but the O.P Bank denied making payment to the Complainant without assigning any reason whatsoever. Then the Complainant submitted an application and wanted to know the basis of withholding the said account but the O.P did not pay any heed. Thereafter the Complainant served one Demand Notice dated 08/06/2015 upon the O.P Bank through his Ld. Lawyer, Mr. B.K. Dutta which was duly received by the O.P Bank in time. Thereafter the O.P in response to such notice intimated to the Ld. Lawyer that they kept hold the said PPF Account as per notification of the CID Authority and it was also intimated that they have taken up the matter with the CID Authority for further consideration. By such an evasive reply, the O.P Bank practically tried to saddle their responsibility particularly when the O.P Bank very much aware that under no circumstances the PPF account can be attached. They are very much aware that the PPF Account is free from any attachment under any order or decree of a Court in respect of any debt or other liabilities whatsoever. In fact, the Complainant had/has no business with the CID Authority. The Complainant maintained his PPF account with his banker, S.B.I. and the O.P Bank is the custodian of the said account and as the PPF account in question has matured, the Complainant is entitled to get the entire amount without any hindrance forthwith. But unfortunately, the O.P Bank at the behest of the CID Authority withheld the said account and denied making payment to the Complainant. The said act of withholdment of the account by the O.P at the behest of CID is totally uncalled for and unwarranted. The Complainant is not in any way concerned with the CID Authority. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the Bank to disburse the amount to the account holder forthwith on its maturity.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant was suffered from mental pain & agony and financial loss also there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which adopted by the O.P.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P to release the PPF account Being No.11324139150 in favour of the Complainant and disburse the entire amount of the said account to the Complainant and also to pay (i) Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and financial loss, (ii) Rs.5,000/- for unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P and (iii) Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deems fit, and proper.
It appears that inspite of due service of Notice upon the O.P Bank, State Bank of India, Sagardighi Square Branch, Cooch Behar they did not turn up before the Forum and accordingly the case has been proceeded in Ex-parte against them.
In the light of the contention of the Complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have perused the record very carefully, seen the entire documents on record which have been filed by the Complainant i.e. letter of the complaint dated 02/04/2015 addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sagardighi Square Branch, Advocate’s letter of the Complainant dated 08/06/2015, a letter of reply of State Bank of India, Sagardighi Square Branch dated 29/05/2015 to the Complainant and the photo copy of P.P.F policy which have been mentioned as “Annexure 1,2,3 & 4”, Heard the argument in Ex-parte as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant.
Point No.1 & 2.
The Complainant has filed this case against the O.P, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sagar Dighi Suare Branch, Cooch Behar for getting maturity money of his P.P.F account which he opened on 15/12/1999 and subsequently re-assigned being A/C. No.11324139150. Though the said O.P neither appeared nor filed any Written Version but it clearly explicit, that the Complainant has a PPF account in their bank which has been matured.
The claim of the Complainant is below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as it appears from the case. The cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
Therefore, having heard the Ld. Agent for the Complainant and the materials on record, we are in view that the Complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case. Thus, the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up conjointly as the same are interlinked with each other.
We have meticulously gone through the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the Complainant as well as the documents filed herein.
If we go through the background of this case we will find that this case has come up in ex-parte.
“Annexure-3” goes to show that it is a photocopy of a letter dated 29/05/2015 which issued by State Bank of India, Sagar Dighi Squar Branch, Cooch Behar addressed to the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. In which it has been informed that the above P.P.F account was kept hold as per Notification of C.I.D Authority where bank had no role to intervene the matter. It reflects further that they had written to the CID Authority for further consideration of the matter and the outcome will be informed to the Complainant immediately on receipt of any advice for the them. In between, the Complainant may also take up the matter with the CID Authority in this regard.
However, the matter was heard in ex-parte and on the date of delivery of passing final order, the Forum thinks, it appropriate to refer the matter as enunciated U/S 13(4)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 to discover and production of document about the matter as disclosed herein with regard to “Annexure-3”. The Forum in its own motion called for a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID, W.B) which appears to be essential to the just decision of the case before pronouncement of the Final Order. The O.P, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sagar Dighi Squar Branch, Cooch Behar was also directed to send a letter in details about the allegations made by the Complainant with regard to his P.P.F account, in question.
Accordingly, the reports of CID, West Bengal and the Branch Manager, S.B.I, Sagar Dighi Square Branch, Cooch Behar dated 06/06/2016 & 07/06/2016 respectively were received by this Forum. We have meticulously gone through the reports which have been received. It appears from the report of C.I.D it discloses many things which have not been mentioned by the Complainant in this case. It appears from the said report that the complaint worked as U.D.C, Development Section, D.M. Office, Cooch Behar and a complaint was lodged against him by D.M Sri Mohon Gandhi, IAS, Cooch Behar regarding his irregularities in M.P. LAD FUND and a criminal case against him was started by I/C, Kotwali P.S being Kotwali P.S Case No.26/13 dated 11/01/2013 U/S 409/420/468/471/466/467/474/477 A I.P.C. The investigation of the same was taken up by CID, W.B and during examination a prima facie charges U/S 409/420/468/471/466/467/474/477 A IPC R/W Sec.13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been well established against the Complainant and on completion of investigation, the I/O submitted C/S in the said case being C/S No.119/15 dated 07/02/2015 U/S 409/420/468/471/466/467/474/477 A of I.P.C R/W Sec. 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The O.P, S.B.I on admitting the fact as disclosed by C.I.D. (W.B) reported that the Complainant approached for withdrawal of money in PPF account before them on 02/04/2015. As per request of DDI, Cooch Behar, CID, (W.B) the bank authority provided the account details and for the interest of investigation they were instructed to fridge the account of the Complainant and accordingly they kept hold the account in question. The bank authority disclosed that even the Ld. Lawyer’s letter dated 29/05/2015 of the Complainant was communicated to Inspector of Police, DDI, Cooch Behar, C.I.D, West Bengal but till date the bank authority did not receive any communication or instruction from C.I.D, W.B.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant strenuously argued that the PPF account shall not be attached in any circumstances. According to him there is no connection in between the facts as disclosed above and the prayer as made by the Complainant in this case.
In our considered view that this is not a case of attachment of property.
“Annexure-4” i.e. photo copy of PPF account goes to show that the PPF account of the Complainant has been credited up to 31/03/2012 but not up to the maturity i.e. 31/03/2015 as averred in the complaint.
On going through the documents which have been filed by the Complainant, and in view of fact and circumstances we are in view that the Complainant has not come with his clean hand. Although the complaint was well aware of the facts but he concealed something. The Complainant has not disclosed the total facts. Actually the allegations regarding irregularities in MPLAD fund against the complaint are still existing before the competent court and the PPF account in question is related with it. No. deficiency in service has been occurred by the O.P. Being a Govt. servant, the Complainant misappropriated the fund as alleged.
Therefore, having heard the Ld. Agent for the complainant and on considering all aspects of this case including the materials on record, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant’s case cannot be allowed in such a situation. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, we are unable to give any relief to the Complainant.
Thus, these points are decided against the complainant.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the present Case No. CC/88/2015 be and the same is dismissed in Ex-parte without costs against the O.P.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
