State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Amit Sen Gupta & Ors. vs The Chairman & Managing Director, ... on 7 February, 2014
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/342/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 26.02.2013 of Consumer Case No. 49/2013 of D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata,
Unit II)
Date of Filing : 26.03.2013 Date of Final Order : 07.02.2014
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1) Sri Amit Sen Gupta,
S/O Late S. C. Sen Gupta,
2) Mrs. Bithika Sen Gupta,
W/O Amit Sen Gupta,
3) Sm. Aditi Sen Gupta,
D/O. Amit SEn Gupta,
All residing at 9/1, Nalin Sarkar Street,
1st floor,
Hatibaga, Kolkata 700004,
P.S. Shyampukur.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1) The Chairman & Managing
Director, United Bank of India,
11 Hemanta Basu Sarani, 5th
floor, Kolkata 700001,
P. S. Hare
Street.
2) Branch Manager, United Bank of India,
Hatibagan Branch, 140B, Bidhan
Sarani, Kolkata 700004,
P.S. Shyampukur.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Smt. Mridula Roy.
MEMBER : Sri Tarapada Gangopadhyay.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : In person.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Debasish Bhandari,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 26.02.2013 passed by Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in CC Case No. 49/2013 rejecting the petition of complaint not being admitted on the ground that there was no prima facie consumer dispute as per the C. P. Act.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order impugned the Complainants have preferred the instant appeal.
The case of the Complainants in brief, is that the Complainants have been maintaining a Savings Bank Account, some fixed deposits and a locker with the O.P. Bank since long. The Complainants have alleged of being harassed by the Bank Authorities which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.
In their petition of complaint the Complainants have stated, inter alia, that they used to face trouble to get the passbook updated and thus had to stand in a long queue, they used to climb a stiff staircase to get into the Bank, the Varandha of the Bank is not safe at all in terms of construction as it is in torn condition, the unjustified remission of locker rent for the unsafe locker, the unsolicited deduction of Rs.17/- towards medical insurance and liquidation of fixed deposit without accrual of interest thereon for 27 days. The Complainant No. 1 wrote several letters to the Bank Authorities intimating the above-mentioned problems for solution for the same but all were in vain since no action has been taken by the said Bank Authorities. Hence, the Complainants have filed the petition of complaint praying for directions upon the O.Ps to ensure cent percent security of assets kept with the O.P. Bank by the account holder and 24 hours strict vigilance to be maintained, to stick to the terms of the agreement executed by and between the Complainant and the Bank in respect of the locker, to pay interest on fixed deposit being No. 217359 which the Bank Authorities delayed and also did not pay any interest for 27 days after maturity, to repair all old structures like verandah and locker etc. to arrange at least two counters for payment and two counters to take money etc. from the account holders, to stop deduction like mediclaim etc. and to return deducted amount of Rs.17/-, to arrange the unmanned server room to be shifted to upper floor and not to harass senior citizens for standing in long queue for transaction and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in total towards compensation to the Complainants.
While advancing his argument the Appellants/Complainants have submitted that all issues as stated in the petition of complaint related to the steep staircase, uninhabitable condition of verandah of the building wherefrom the Bank runs its business, unsafe locker room, imposing charges for locker violating terms of the agreement for hiring the locker and liquidating the fixed deposit without giving interest for Rs.27 days, but the Bank authorities did not take necessary action to redress the grievances. In support of their contention the Appellants annexed copies of correspondences on which they relied.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that all letters to the Bank by the Appellant No. 1 as annexed by the Appellants to the petition of complaint are in nature of suggestion and not of complaint. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has further submitted that no document in support of their argument has been filed regarding the issue of imposing extra charge for locker violation the terms of the agreement.
In this connection Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Appellants have been intimated regarding the charge schedule of the locker rent as per R.B.I. guideline and thereafter the rent of the locker was remitted.
Having heard the argument advanced by both sides and perusing the documents on record it appears that the Appellants are consumers under the Bank. The Appellants have alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for keeping them in long queue to get their passbook updated, compelling them to climb a steep staircase, not taking proper steps to ensure 100% security to the customers of the Bank in respect of their life and assets since the balcony of the Bank building is not in habitable condition, not arranging proper security for locker room and the Appellants have prayed for hefty amount of compensation.
But in respect of the above-mentioned issues no cause of action took place. Further, the Appellants have alleged unsolicited deduction of Rs.17/- by the Bank towards medical insurance and deduction of excessive amount towards locker rent in violation of the agreed terms by the parties. But the Appellants have failed to prove the allegation by adducing documentary evidence.
In that view of the matter we find that the Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no need to interfere with the same.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ordered that the appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned order is affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT