##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL APPEAL EXECUTION NO. SC/19/AE/36/2022

Sourendra Nath Dutt PRESENT ADDRESS - 171/A, Bidhan Sarani, P.S.- Burtolla, Kolkata-700006 .......Appellant(s)

Versus

Regional Manager, State Bank of India PRESENT ADDRESS - 1, Middleton Street, 10th Floor, P.S.- Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata

700071 Branch Manager, State Bank of India PRESENT ADDRESS - Jorasanko Branch, 1/1A, Nanda Mullick Lane, Police Station-Girish Park,

Kolkata-700006 .......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAJES GUHA RAY, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SANTANU SAHA, MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT: Sourendra Nath Dutt, In-person (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Regional Manager, State Bank of India , Ms. Karabi Mukherjee. (Advocate)

DATED: 05/08/2026

ORDER

Mr. Rajes Guha Ray, Judicial Member

1. This appeal under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit- II Execution case no. EA/15/2018 arising out of Case no.

CC/217 of 2016 and arising out of Appeal No. A/387/2018.

1.1. The pleadings in the memo of this appeal are haphazardly arranged and suffer inconsistencies. However, as it appears from the pleadings of the memorandum of appeal and its annexures, the background of this appeal in a nut shell is that one Gobinda Lal Dutta, the uncle of the appellant had a term

1

deposit at S.B.I., Jorasanko Branch i.e. the present respondents. Said Gobinda Lal Dutta died leaving a Will.

1.2. Madan Mohan Dutt, the Late father of the appellant was an Executor of the Will of his elder brother said Late Gobinda Lal Duta and the instant appellant was one of the beneficiaries of said Will. During pendency of probate proceeding of said Will, the above mentioned Term Deposit matured and it was not withdrawn by said Madan Mohan Dutt due to pendency of proceeding before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. On 09.03.1984 by a letter to SBI, said Madan Mohan Dutta requested the Bank to renew and continue the said Term Deposit for a further period of 63 months or till the end of probate case and it was received by the Bank. The Bank did not act upon said letter and thus acted illegally by not renewing said Fixed Deposit causing serious injury, loss and prejudice to the appellant. On 21.01.2000 the probate of said Will was

granted.

1.3. It is the contention that the State Bank of India in reply to a letter dated 14.11.2002 issued by Ld. Advocate of the appellant informed said Ld. Advocate that savings bank interest would be paid on the (i) Term Deposit Receipt for Rs. 10,000/- dated 08.03.1976 (Date of Maturity 08.05.1981). In the said letter dated 14.11.2002 Ld. Advocate asked S.B.I. to calculate interest up to date on sum fixed and furnish statements of accounts showing the basis of calculation and the sum payable to the appellant. The S.B.I, Jorasanko Branch by letter dated 17.12.2002 informed that savings bank interest would be paid on the said sum which has matured on 08.5.1981 and did not furnish any

statement of accounts. And this is the root of this case.

2. It appears from contentions of both sides and materials on records that the present appellant filed a complaint case being no. CC/217/2016 before Ld. Forum below in which order dated 8^th September, 2016 was passed to pay an amount Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony for the complainant

and furnishing statements of accounts in respect of said Term Deposit etc.

3. Thereafter the appellant/complainant put said order into execution being EA/15/2018 for compliance of the order. The J.drs./O.Ps on 29.03.2019 made prayer for their inability to comply with the order and Ld. District Forum dropped the Execution Case. Thereafter against that order the appellant/complainant preferred appeal being no. A/387/2018 under Section

2

27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before Ld. SCDRC which was allowed on 06.08.2019 directing both the parties to appear before Ld. Forum below on 06.09.2019.