MAA TARINI TRANSPORT LTD. vs BRANCH MANAGER, KEONJHAR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

The first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned dated 03.08.2011, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in consumer complaint No. 40/2011, filed by the present appellant, vide which, the said complaint was not entertained by the State Commission and dismissed.

The facts of the case are that the complainant M/s MAA Tarini Transport Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act and represented by its M.D. Srimamanta Kumar Tripathi, having its office at Barbil, District Keonjhar in the State of Odisha. The complainant company is carrying on transport business besides running petrol pumps and a water plant in the area. They are stated to have current account No. 00232 with Keonjhar Central Cooperative Bank, Barbil since 06.06.2009. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that there was discrepancy in the balance amount shown in the account of the complainant, as per the manual statement issued by the Bank and the statement under the computerised system. The balance as on 01.04.2008 stood as 4,36,51,825.70ps. as per the manual statement, whereas the balance was 3,41,97,215.54ps. as per the computerised statement. As stated in the complaint, on subsequent dates as well, there were discrepancies in the manual and computerised statements issued by the Bank. The complainant alleged that despite requesting the bank several times to reconcile the difference in figures, the Bank had not taken any action to rectify the same. It is stated further that the complainant filed a writ petition in the Hon''ble High Court as well, but despite the directions given by the High Court, the OP Bank did not rectify the mistake. It has been alleged further that as a result of reconciliation efforts, it was discovered that a sum of 30 lakh had not been taken into account in the computerised statement. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking compensation of 49,14,784/- from the bank. The complaint was heard by the State Commission and vide impugned order dated 03.08.2011, they directed as follows:-

"Heard Mr. R.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the consumer/complainant-M/s Maa Tarini Transport Limited. Alleging negligence and deficiency in financial service as against the opposite parties, the complainant has filed this consumer complaint seeking compensation from them.

We have heard Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel at length. Perused the complaint petition and the annexures appended to it. Prima facie, we find that this is a matter pertaining to account dispute, which can be sorted out at the level of the parties and this Commission has nothing to do with the matter. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the Consumer Complaint and dismiss the same."

Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondents, who appeared through counsel. The appeal was admitted and the matter was ordered to be listed in due course. After relisting of the matter, notice was again sent to the respondent in response to which Sh. Hara Prasad Sahu, Advocate appeared before this Commission on 30.11.2016 and stated that the main arguing counsel could not come for hearing that day. The matter was adjourned to 17.05.2017, but on that date, none was present for the respondent bank. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have been heard.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the State Commission should have decided the consumer complaint on merits rather than dismissing the same by observing that the matter was related to an accounts dispute which could be sorted out at the level of the parties and the State Commission had nothing to do with the matter.

An examination of the papers on record indicates that the complainant company is an account holder with the respondent Bank and hence, they are availing themselves of the services of the said Bank. In the consumer complaint, specific allegations have been levelled saying that there were discrepancies in the account statements maintained by the Bank manually and on computerised system. The interest of justice and equity demand that the State Commission should have gone into the allegations levelled in the complaint and then decided the cases after considering the merits of the same. The contention taken by the State Commission that it is merely an account dispute and hence, the consumer fora had nothing to do with the same, is erroneous on the face of it and hence, the order passed by the State Commission is perverse in the eyes of law. Opening and maintaining an account with the Bank does come in the definition of service as stated in section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In case, the Bank has indulged in any negligence or deficiency in service, it is the duty of the consumer fora to look into the matter and redress the grievance of the consumer. Needless to say that while taking cognisance of the consumer complaint, a consumer forum is supposed to go into all relevant aspects of the matter including the maintainability of the complaint as well. However, simply saying that the State Commission has nothing to do with the matters pertaining to account dispute is uncalled for, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Based on the discussion above, this First Appeal is allowed, the order passed by the State Commission dated 03.08.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission with the direction that they should call the other party before them, obtain their version, the evidence of both the parties and then take a decision on the consumer complaint on merits. It shall be appreciated if the State Commission dispose off this complaint within four months of taking cognisance of the same.