State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Samar Chandra Das vs Sri Prasad Kumar Karan on 20 March, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/413/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/03/2013 in Case No. CC/03/2013 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. Sri Samar Chandra Das S/o Late Ajoy Chandra Das, Vill. Satangabari, P.O. Kiakhali, P.S. Nandigram, Dist. Purba Medinipur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Prasad Kumar Karan S/o Pulin Karan, Branch Manager, Takapura Samabay Krishi Unnyan Samiti Ltd., P.O. Takepura, P.S. Nandigram, Dist. Purba Medinipur. 2. Sri Tarapada Khatua S/o Ajit Khatua, Secretary, Takapura Samabay Krishi Unnyan Samiti Ltd., P.O. Takepura, P.S. Nandigram, Dist. Purba Medinipur. 3. Smt. Namita Bera W/o Shri Achinta Bera, Vill. & P.O. -Takapura, P.S. Nandigram, Dist. Purba Medinipur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Matilal Khatua, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Partha Sarathi Maiti, Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Maiti, Advocate Mr. Nemai Chandra Paul, Advocate ORDER 20.03.2015 MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON'BLE MEMBER
The instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the Complainant/Appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur in Consumer Case No. 03/2013, dismissing the Petition of Complaint.
Facts of the case centre round a narrow compass, which is set out hereinafter.
The Complainant/Appellant had a Savings Bank Account (No. 473) with the OP/Respondent-Samity. On 22.2.2011 when the Appellant/ Complainant attempted to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- from the said account, the OP/Respondent-Samity did not allow the withdrawal of the said sum on the ground of insufficient balance in the said account. Thereupon when the Complainant/Appellant contacted the OP/Respondent-Samity, he was informed by the OP/Respondent-Samity that on 7.4.2008 Rs. 27,000/- were erroneously credited to the said account of the Complainant/Appellant against Deposit Challan No. 9 dated 7.4.2008, which stood in the name of one Smt. Namita Bera, the OP No. 3/Respondent No. 3, who deposited in her own account the said amount under Challan No. 9 dated 7.4.2008. Subsequent to such event, in order to unearth the truth an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Purba Medinipur and the concerned report dated 5.6.2012 under Memo No. 1100-1-513-61, as submitted by the Enquiry Officer, reveals that the deposit of the said disputed amount was supported by Deposit Challan of Smt. Namita Bera and the Complainant/Appellant could not support his claim of deposit of the disputed amount with any such Challan as produced by Smt. Namita Bera. The said report also noted that the error involved in the disputed amount was committed by the Ex-Manager of the OP/Respondent-Samity. After such report, the OP/Respondent-Samity informed in writing the Complainant/Appellant about such mistake by the Ex-Manager of the OP/Respondent-Samity. In this backdrop, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order dismissing the Complaint. Dissatisfied with such order the Complainant has approached this Commission.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant submits that the Respondent/OP-Samity has made out an excuse of erroneous entry in the Passbook and Savings Deposit Ledger Book concerning the Appellant/ Complainant with a view to depriving the Appellant/Complainant of his legitimate dues.
It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that if it were a case of error, then the Respondent/OP-Samity should have suo motu informed the Appellant/Complainant much earlier, but not after a long period to time and that too when the Appellant/Complainant attempted for withdrawal of his money. The Ld. Advocate continues that the Respondent/OP-Samity had not been able to substantiate their case by any usual Annual Audit Report.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Appellant/Complainant had lost the concerned Deposit Challan as emphasized and relied upon by the Respondent/OP-Samity during the gap of such a long period. The Ld. Advocate finally concludes that in view of the submission so put forward, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being improper and unjust.
On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/OP-Samity submits that the concerned Deposit Challan No. 9 dated 7.4.2008 and the Daily Cash Book of the concerned date being the primary evidence of receipt of money, on the basis of which entries in the Passbook and Savings Deposit Ledger are subsequently posted, corroborates the deposit of the disputed amount by one Smt. Namita Bera (Account No. 119) and thereby indicates the erroneous entries by the Respondent/OP-Samity of the said disputed amount in the account of the Appellant/Complainant.
It is further contended by the Ld. Advocate that the Enquiry Report by the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, as available on records, also took the view that the entries of the disputed amount in the Passbook and Savings Deposit Ledger were the mistakes on the part of the Ex-Manager of the Respondent/OP-Samity.
The Ld. Advocate finally concludes that in this factual aspect of the case, the impugned judgment and order should be sustained, it being just and proper.
We have heard both the sides, considered their rival contentions and perused the materials on records.
The concerned Deposit Challan No. 9 dated 7.4.2008 and the Daily Cash Book of the concerned date being the basis of the entry of the amount in question clearly demonstrate that the deposited amount was received by the Respondent/OP-Samity from one Smt. Namita Bera (Account No. 119). Against such basic document of deposit of money in dispute in favour of Smt. Namita Bera, the Appellant/Complainant has not been able to produce the relevant Deposit Challan or any such basic document of his claim of deposit of the disputed amount.
The Passbook and the Savings Deposit Ledger where entries are subsequently made on the basis of the said primary documents, as produced and relied upon by the Appellant/Complainant, cannot get precedence over the said primary documents as produced by the Respondent/OP-Samity.
Furthermore, the Enquiry Report by the Additional Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, as available on records, also does not support the claim of the Appellant/ Complainant in absolute term. Against all those evidence on records even the principle of preponderance of probability does not speak in favour of the Appellant/Complainant.
In view of the above discussion and evidence on records we are unable to disagree with the conclusion in the impugned judgment and order, which, in our opinion, has been passed upon correct appreciation of the facts and evidence on records.
Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER