State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank, Rep. By Its Branch Manager. vs Sri Parimal Chandra Dutta on 9 February, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1027/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/04/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/66/2014 of District Cooch Behar) 1. HDFC Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager. N.N. Road, P.S - Kotwali, P.O & Dist - Cooch Behar, 736 101. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Parimal Chandra Dutta S/o, Lt. Umesh Chandra Dutta, Old Post Office Para, R.R.N. Road, P.S - Kotwali, P.O & Dist - Cooch Behar - 736 101. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Sarbari Datta, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Debnath Saha., Advocate Dated : 09 Feb 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal targets the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Cooch Behar on 30-04-2015 in CC/66/2014 whereof the complaint has been allowed on contest.
To narrate in brief, case of the Complainant is that, he deposited Rs. 1,10,000/- at the OP Bank on 16-11-2012. However, the bank credited only Rs. 55,000/- in his account. After noticing such goof up on the part of the OP, the Complainant lodged complaint with it, but to no avail. Hence, the complaint.
On the other hand, case of the OP is that, Complainant is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. Further case of the OP is that during that period, Complainant registered himself for SMS alerts for transactions in respect of his account and was also served periodic statement of accounts. In case the Complainant indeed deposited the disputed sum and the same was not reflected in his statement of account properly, he would surely raise a hue and cry instantly. That apart, the Complainant was also a registered Net Banking user and carried out normal transactions through the account post alleged deposit. Hence, any claim of the Complainant that he was ignorant of the fate of disputed deposit for long hold no water.
Decision with reasons Heard the submission made by both sides and perused the documents on record carefully.
First things first. Since the Appellant raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the case, let us discuss the issue first.
On thoughtful consideration of the submissions made by respective parties, we notice the following aspects that is suffice to come to a definite conclusion in the matter.
First of all, there is no such averment anywhere in the petition of complaint that the disputed money was Complainant's business earning.
Secondly, as we know, commercial houses operate current accounts for business purpose and in this case, the subject account is a Savings account stands in the joint name of Respondent's wife and Respondent.
Thirdly, it is most important to note that one does not open a bank account for generating profit; the same is used simply for keeping money safely. It is the settled position of law that when service is hired for something which is not directly intended to generate profit, that cannot be tagged as commercial purpose.
For all these reasons, the maintainability issue being raised by the Appellant falls flat being bereft of any merit.
Now, let us concentrate on the epicenter of dispute. We have duly weighed the various aspects/implications of lodging delayed complaint by the Respondent as pointed out by the Appellant. At the same time, we have also given our thoughtful consideration to the counter argument put forth by the Respondent in this regard.
It is true that the Appellant sought to pick hole with the concerned deposit slip pointing out that unlike other deposit slips, the same does not bear the signature of the depositor. However, that does not turn a deposit slip invalid in the eye of law as long as the reliability of the official seal of the bank and signature of concerned cashier remains unsuspected.
We notice that, for the reasons best known to them, the Ld. Advocate did not call in question even once in course of lengthy argument the authenticity of the stamp and signature of bank official contained therein. It is a grave criminal offence to forge a bank seal and signature and it is most unlikely that the Respondent would invite the hazards of criminal charges and thereby, put at stake his own reputation before the society at large for a sum of only Rs. 55,000/-. Above all, if the Appellant was so convinced that the Respondent indeed committed criminal offence, no one prevented it from lodging police complaint against the Respondent, but there is nothing on record to show that it lodged any complaint against the Respondent.
It further appears that the Respondent produced the original deposit slip before the Ld. District Forum. It is naïve to believe that, if the Appellant had slightest doubt about its authenticity, it would impress upon the Ld. District Forum to refer the same to an appropriate authority to determine its genuineness.
It is argued by the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant that since the disputed money was not deposited, no SMS alert was sent to the Respondent. However, this cannot be a valid ground to accord benefit of doubt to the Appellant. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that, in case it was the handiwork of Appellant's own official, he would certainly not show it in the accounts of the bank and quite naturally in that case, SMS alert would not reach the registered mobile no. of the account-holder/Respondent. Therefore, as soon as formal complaint was lodged before it by the Respondent, it was incumbent upon the Appellant to cause due enquiry and interrogate the concerned staff whose signature resembled the purported signature on the disputed deposit slip in question. Unfortunately, no such enquiry report is forthcoming before us to show that the Appellant did cause decent enquiry into the matter.
Insofar as there is nothing to show that the bank seal & signature on the subject deposit slip is fabricated, in our considered opinion, the Appellant cannot shrug off its liability toward the Respondent.
In view of this, the impugned order does not warrant any sort of intervention from our end save and except exonerating the Appellant from the liability of depositing any amount to the Welfare Fund of the Ld. District Forum.
The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands allowed in part on contest against the Respondent. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant need not pay any amount to the 'State Consumer Welfare Fund' on account of its failure/negligence to ensure due compliance of the impugned order within the scheduled time set out by the Ld. District Forum. The Appellant is directed to pay the decretal amount to the Respondent within 40 days hence, i.d., the Appellant shall have to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the entire decretal amount from this day till full and final payment is made. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER