State Bank of India

1356711

Comments

  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    FIRST APPEAL No. 60/2008

    DECIDED ON 16.11.2009.

    In the matter of:



    Sh. M.K. Anand son of Shri Jagat Ram R/o Chamunda Niwas,

    Ward No. 7 Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, HP.

    ... ... Appellants.

    Versus

    1. The Chairman State Bank of India, Central Office,

    Madam Cama Road, Backway Reclamation, Mumbai 400 021;

    2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch at

    Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, HP.

    ... ... Respondents.
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President

    Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



    Whether approved for reporting? No.



    For the Appellant: Mr. D.R. Verma, Advocate.



    For the Respondents: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate.

    O R D E R:
    Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).



    We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order, as well as pleadings filed by the parties as also the evidence placed by them on record.

    2. While dismissing the complaint No. 92/2005, vide impugned order dated 10.12.2007, District Forum Shimla, Camp at Nahan has dealt with the case in a sketchy, slipshod and cursory manner without properly marshalling the facts based on pleadings of the parties as also without briefly going into the evidence filed by them. Though learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and it needs to be upheld. We say nothing in this behalf, reason being that if any observation is made either way, it is likely to prejudice one of the parties.

    3. Besides this we are further of the view that interest of justice demands that after setting aside the impugned order case needs to be remanded back to the District Forum below with a direction to re-hear the parties afresh on the basis of the material on record, that is already there on the record and then dispose of the same after dealing with the pleadings, as well as evidence and all the pleas those may be raised before it at the time of hearing. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the decision will be taken by the District Forum below without being prejudiced by its earlier order as well as by anything said in this order, because we have expressed no opinion on the pleas as urged on behalf of the parties. Appeal is allowed subject to these directions and the case is remanded back to District Forum below.

    4. Since parties are duly represented, as such they are directed to appear before District Forum at Nahan on 17.12.2009. No fresh notice will be issued to either of the party since we have fixed the date. It is also clarified that in case for any reason Presiding Officer is not holding a court on this date parties shall appear and get further date. Disposed of according.

    Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    F.A.NO.732/2005

    (Against order in O.P.No.19/2005 on the file of the DCDRF,Nagercoil)
    DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

    S.Periya Nadar

    S/o.Sethrabalan

    5/98, Pulluvilai

    Parakkai, Kanyakumari District :: Appellant/1st complainant
    Vs.

    1. The Branch Manager

    State Bank of India

    Thengamputhur

    Kanyakumari District. :: Respondent/ Opposite Part



    2. M. Thomas

    General Secretary

    Kanyakumari Jilla Consumer

    Protection Centre,

    Nagercoil :: Respondent/ 2nd complainant



    The appellant as first complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/opposite party, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony, pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost and to pay the FDR amount with interest at the stage of maturity . The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.08.2005 in C.C.No.19/2005.



    This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 10.11.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this commission pronounced the following order.

    Counsel for Appellant/ 1st complainant : M/s.S.Devika & T.Mohan

    Counsel for Respondent/ Opposite party: M/s.K.C.Poulose


    Hon’ble M. THANIKACHALAM J.


    1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.



    2. The complainant / appellant who is having the savings Bank Account

    with the opposite party, obtained loan from the opposite party, surrendering the Fixed Deposit as security. Though, complainant was paying loan amount regularly, later on, unable to pay the same, because of the loss sustained in the agricultural operation. The bank without giving any notice, adjusted the loan amount, from the fixed deposit receipts, even before its maturity, which is illegal, even against natural justice. Hence, the complaint is filed claiming refund of fixed deposit amount as well as for compensation.



    3. The opposite party denying the averments in the complaint inter alia contended, that the complainant executed an agreement, obtained a loan from the bank to the tune of Rs.1,24,000 /- on 28.04.1999, and in the loan agreement, the complainant has authorised the bank to exercise general power of lien, in favour of the bank, that when the complainant has failed to discharge the loan as agreed, exercising authority available under the loan agreement, adjusted fixed deposit receipts amount towards the loan in which there cannot be any deficiency of service or negligent and this being the position, the question of returning the amount or to pay the compensation does not arise, there by prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

    4. Based upon the above pleadings, as well as perusing the documents relied on either side, the trial forum came to the conclusion, that there is no deficiency of any kind, that when the complainant failed to make payments and regularize the loan account, the bank left with no other option except to exercise the general lien, thereby adjusted the fixed deposit receipt amounts (Ex.B1) towards the outstanding loan amount, which cannot be considered, as deficiency of service. Thus concluding, the petition came to be dismissed on 25.08.2005 which is under challenge.

    5. Heard, the learned counsel for appellant as well as the respondents, perused the written submission in addition to the documents filed by them.

    6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/that the bank has no right or authority, to premature the fixed deposit receipt and adjust the amount, towards alleged non payment of loan and this being the position, since, they had pre matured the Fixed Deposit Receipts and adjusted the amount, that should be construed as deficiency in service.

    7. Opposing the above submission, it is the case of the opposite party, that under the agreement of loan, the complainant himself has authorised the bank to adjust the balance of loan amount, from the fixed deposit receipt amount, and when such right was legally exercised the same cannot be termed as deficiency in service, which should follow neither refund of the amount nor payment of compensation would arises for consideration.

    8. Admittedly, the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.1,24,000 /- on 28.04.1999 for agricultural purpose, for which he gave the Fixed Deposit Receipts in question as security, agreeing to pay the loan amount that, he had repaid the installments up to 2002, and thereafter committed default. Therefore, according to Bank, as per the agreement dated 28.04.1999, executed at the time the borrowing the loan, a right was given or power of general lien was given, to adjust the dues, from the fixed deposit amount, which is also available under Section.171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the bank has rightly when the loan amount was not fully paid, that too, after giving notice as evidenced by the documents, exercised their right of lien, and adjusted the dues, from the fixed deposit amount, paying the balance amount of Rs.941/- by cheque, to the complainant which is also not denied, or challenged. Therefore, we are unable to understand, how the question of deficiency arises in this case.

    9. It is not the case of the appellant/complainant that the entire loan amount was paid, whereas the bank has wrongly exercised the power given to them, thereby they have pre matured the fixed deposit receipts, and adjusted amount etc,. When, the complainant was a chronic defaulter, when he failed to repay the entire the loan, the bank had rightly exercised lien, and adjusted the amount, in which, we are unable to see any irregularity or illegality or any deficiency in service.

    10. The contention of the complainant, that the bank has failed to inform the complainant, that as per the scheme offered by the Government, there was total or partial waiver of loan amount, which was not informed by them, should be construed as deficiency in service is, untenable. Except the allegations regarding the waiver, it is not made out, when the bank had adjusted the loan, there was waiver scheme giving any relief to the complainant, and bank also bound by the waiver scheme, and despite this fact they have exceeded the jurisdiction or something like that. Therefore, on the basis of the waiver scheme, totally or partially as if it is made available to complainant also, it is very difficult to fix any liability upon the bank, warranting a direction to return the maturity amount or to pay compensation as claimed on any basis.

    11. The Trial Forum considering the case properly, as well as the agreement of hypothecation, has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service of any kind which is well acceptable to us. Hence, we are constrained to hold, that the appeal is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed.

    12. In the result, appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of District Forum in O.P.No.19/2005 dt.25.8.2005, under the facts circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    F.A.NO.728/2005

    (Against order in O.P.No.324/2002 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)

    DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
    1. Syed Pyarijan
    2. Syed Kushnooda Begum

    No.41, Gandhinagar

    Ennore High Road

    Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081 Appellants / Complainants
    Vs.
    1. State Bank of India

    Rep. by its Manager, Rajampet

    Cuddapah District

    Andhra Pradesh – 516 115

    2. State Bank of India

    Rep. by its Chairman

    No.21, Rajaji Salai

    Chennai – 600 001 Respondents / Opposite parties

    The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents /opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,79,572 towards due with interest at 12% p.a., from 18.12.01 and Rs.2 lakhs as compensation with and cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.01.04.2005 in CC No.324/2002.



    This appeal petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.10.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this commission made the following order:



    Counsel for the Appellants / complainants : M/s. N.L.Rajah , Advocates

    Counsel for the Respondents/ Opposite party : Mr.S.Sethuraman, Advocate

    Hon’ble M. THANIKACHALAM J.



    1. The complainants in OP.No.324/2002 on the file of the District Forum Chennai (North) are the appellants.



    2. The appellants, as complainants have approached the District Forum, for certain reliefs, as catalogued under paragraph 49 of the petition, alleging interalia, that non-refund of the Fixed Deposit amounts on maturity, deposited by their predecessors in interest, with the 1st opposite party bank, would amounts to deficiency in service, that the amount refunded/ returned, after negotiated settlement under the Lok Adalat, falls short in agreed interest, since they are bound to pay interest as agreed originally, and therefore suitable directions should be issued, for the payment of interest, as originally agreed, in addition to compensation, etc.



    3. The opposite parties, opposed the claim, interalia on the ground, that the Forum, where the complainant has filed the case, has no jurisdiction, since the 1st opposite party, against whom the relief is sought for, is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Forum, and that the 2nd opposite party has no connection with the 1st opposite party, the further fact being the 2nd opposite party is also not properly sought to be represented by the person competent to represent, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.



    4. The District Forum, taking the case for enquiry and considering the plea of the 1st opposite party, viz. the forum has no jurisdiction, took the said point for determination.



    5. After hearing the arguments of either side, by going through the relevant provisions of the Act, as well as relying upon a decision rendered by the National commission, it came to the conclusion, that the Forum has no jurisdiction, thereby dismissed the complaint, as per the order dt.01.04.2005, thereby giving cause of action for the complainants, to come to this Commission, as appellant. While disposing the complaint, the District Forum has also observed “this order will not prejudice in any way the parties, who are seeking remedy in the appropriate forum on merits”, thereby giving liberty also to the complainants to approach the proper forum for proper remedy. Despite this fact, the complainant having not satisfied, entertaining grievance, have impugned the order before this Commission.



    6. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as the respondents, perused the written submission, in addition to the documents filed by them and also the order of the District Forum.



    7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit, that while construing the territorial jurisdiction, the District Forum has committed an error, in not properly understanding the Sec.11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore the order has to be set aside, then remanding the matter to the Forum concerned, for disposal on merit, since no finding has been given in respect of other points, raised by either side, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, supporting the findings rendered by the District Forum.



    8. In this context, we have to see, (1) where the transaction had taken place, (2) who is answerable for the alleged claim by the claimant, and (3) whether including the 2nd opposite party would confer jurisdiction upon the forum, where the complaint has been filed.



    9. Originally, the case was filed only against the 1st opposite party, who is having its office at Rajampet, Cuddapah District, Andrapradesh. After the filing of the complaint, it seems the Forum questioned, how the case could be filed against the person, who is permanently residing at Andrapradesh, in Chennai Forum. In order to overcome the query, and to confer the jurisdiction upon the Forum, the 2nd opposite party is added, and the cause title reads “State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chairman, 21 Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 60 001”. Though the 2nd opposite party has been included, there is no allegation against the 2nd opposite party, how the 2nd opposite party is liable to answer the claim of the complainant, except saying in paragraph 49 “This Hon’ble Forum, may be pleased to direct the Opposite parties” . In the cause of action paragraph also, it is not even stated how the 2nd opposite party is liable. An attempt is made to say, as if District Forum at Chennai will have jurisdiction, since the head office of the 1st opposite party is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Admittedly, as described in the cause title, the 2nd opposite party is not the head office for the 1st opposite party, and therefore, the question of 2nd opposite party carrying on business, within the jurisdiction of the Forum, where the case has been filed, will not confer jurisdiction upon the forum viz. Chennai (North). The District Forum, also has taken note of this point and has observed in its judgement, which reads “Even the cause title of the 2nd opposite party is incorrect as there is no Chairman working at No.21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, it is only the CGM, who is the highest official for the whole of Tamil Nadu, and the Chairman of State Bank of India is working only at Mumbai that too main Head Office and the nomenclature mentioned hereunder is incorrect…………….”. Therefore, on the ground, as if the 1st opposite party is doing business, under the supervision of the 2nd opposite party also, we cannot come to a conclusion that District Forum, Chennai (North), will have jurisdiction.



    10. Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act, defines the jurisdiction of the District Forum under Sec.11(2) “The complaint should be instituted in a District Forum, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, actually and voluntarily resides, etc.” and under Sec.11(2) (b), where there are more than one opposite party, they actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business etc., or have a branch office. If these ingredients are available, the Forum can have jurisdiction, and not otherwise. Admittedly, as per the pleadings, the deposits, for which short fall of interest is claimed, which were deposited by the complainant’s predecessor’s in interest, only with the 1st opposite party bank, which is not having its business within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennai (North) Forum. As adverted above, as indicated by the District Forum, and also the 2nd opposite party has not been properly represented. Further nowhere in the pleadings, which is the criterion to decide the jurisdiction, it is said that the 1st opposite party is under the control of the 2nd opposite party, or the 1st opposite party’s transactions are controlled by the 2nd opposite party, having account with them, etc. In this view, it cannot be stated at any stretch of imagination, that the 1st opposite party is having connection with the 2nd opposite party, or the 2nd opposite party is carrying on business, having branch office at Rajampet, Andrapradesh, visa viz. Therefore, under Sec.11(2)(b), also we are unable to confer jurisdiction upon District Forum, Chennai (North), though by making abortive attempt, jurisdiction was conferred, which was rightly taken note of, and the complaint was dismissed, in which we are unable to find any error of law, warranting our interference. Hence the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.



    11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in O.P.No.324/2005 dt.1.4.2005, with cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    UNNUMBERED CMP. /2009 IN FASR.750/2007
    [Against order in C.C.No.200/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore]

    DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

    R.P. Manoharan, |

    27-C, Gayathri Complex, | Petitioner/Apellant/

    Huzur Road, | Opposite Party

    Coimbatore - 18. |

    Vs.

    State Bank of India (Commercial Branch), | Respondent/ Respondent/

    rep. by its Manager, | Complainant

    Tirupur. |


    Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/O.P : M/s.V.Shankar,

    HON'BLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT



    1. This unnumbered CMP has been filed by the opposite party in CC.220/2006 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore to condone the delay of 691 days in restoring FASR.750/2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.10.2007.



    2. After the filing of the application, the Registry felt that the petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same was placed before us to decide the maintainable.



    3. Heard the Learned Counsel Mr.V.Shankar, Counsel for the Petitioner.



    4. The respondent herein as complainant filed a case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in CC.220/2006, complaining certain deficiencies against the opposite party who is a practicing advocate as if he has not filed the case which was entrusted to him and also failed to refund the fees, that the cheques issued by him were not honoured and he has also not honoured the same despite notice etc., thereby claiming a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation by way of damages towards loss, mental agony etc.,



    5. Before the lower Forum, the opposite party has not appeared and contested the case, resulting an exparte order passed on merits, relying upon number of documents. The trial Forum analyzing the documents, going through the affidavit of the complainant, felt unhesitatingly that opposite party had committed deficiency in service and he has also committed breach of trust. In this view, a direction cam to be issued on 03.05.2007 for payment a sum of Rs.1 lakh with interest at the rate of 12% from 20.11.2002, in addition to, cost of Rs.3,000/-.



    6. The opposite party aggrieved by the said order, filed a docket before this Commission, as if appeal has been filed along with order copy of the lower Forum. An Advocate who suffered an adverse order, knew the procedure and despite the same he has not filed the appeal in the sense stating the grounds of the appeal complying the provision of the Act also furnishing copy etc., In view of the admitted position, grounds on appeal has not been filed, the Registry returned the papers on 17.07.2003, stating "how appeal is maintainable without grounds", granting 15 days for compliance. The said paper was represented without compliance, making an endorsement, as if complied which reads "complied and represented". In view of the fact, the return is also not properly complied, the Registry placed the paper before the Commission for appropriate order on 17.08.2007. This Commission instead rejecting the paper, said to be an appeal, adjourned the case till 3.10.2007 on which date an endorsement was made by the Counsel on record which reads "Appeal may be rejected as matter has been settled out of Court". Based upon the endorsement, this Commission passed an order which reads "Endorsement made. APSR is dismissed as settled out of Court. No cost". Since appeal itself has not been taken on file, no duty is caused with the Commission to dismiss the APSR as settled out of Court and if at all we should have rejected the FASR in limini, be it as if may.



    7. After 691 days, this unnumbered CMP has been filed to condone the delay in filing a petition to restore the FASR which was dismissed on 03.10.2007, since the appeal itself was not filed in proper form, question of restoring that does not arise for consideration and this being the position, question of condoning the delay also will not arise for consideration. Whether these petitions are maintainable or not. On these grounds alone, petition is liable to be rejected. In view of the above position, the matter was placed before us to decide the maintainability.



    8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before us that this Commission has inherent power to set aside or review the order passed by it since this Commission along had dismissed the FASR and he also invited our attention to a decision reported in "III (2000) CPJ 418", the State Commission, Orissa, has taken the view that the Commission should have inherent power to pass such orders for ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and such a power is inherent with the constitution of the Court or Tribunal etc., By going through the above decision, as well as the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, where we find no provision for review or vesting any inherent power, we are unable to concur and follow with a view expressed by the State Commission in the above rulings. Under Section 22 of the Consume Protection Act, only the National Commission is vested with a power to review any order made by it, that too, when there is an error apparent on the fact of record. Such a power is also not vested with the State Commission. If the review sought is only for limited extent of correcting an arithmetical mistake or grammatical mistake or clerical mistake, this Commission can exercise its power to rectify the same and not otherwise as claimed in this case.



    9. In "New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt.Sukanti Paikray" reported in "2005 (2) CPR 138 (NC)", the National Commission took the view "State Commission has not been provided with powers to review its own orders passed on merit". When the (statue) is silent about the inherent power, question of exercising inherent, that too, under Section 151 CPC which is not made applicable to the State Commission, is not at all possible. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Forum has got inherent power to review the order is unacceptable and same is liable to be rejected.



    10. On merit also the petition deserves to be rejected, that too, awarding cost which we refrain, considering the fairness of learned counsel appearing before us. A practicing Advocate committed deficiency in service when a matter was entrusted by the complainant namely filing of case, paying fees, when questioned, it seems, he had issued cheques, bounced not honoured. Having received the notice, he remained silent, thereby, suffered an award. He attempted to question the same before this Commission an audacity not even filing grounds of appeal, when questioned by the Registry, sort the matter and placed before this Commission for maintainability. When the case was coming for maintainability, on his own, the opposite party reported as if matter has been settled between themselves, thereby, made an endorsement through the counsel which cannot disown and fact he is not disowning also. When the matter is final once for all settled and the case has been dismissed, question of setting aside that order by this Commission is beyond its power and if at all the opposite party aggrieved by the said order dated 03.10.2007, he ought to have approached the higher forum which is failed, thus an Advocate by profession, prima facie, having committed misconduct, once again knocking the doors of this Commission to set aside the order dated 03.10.2007, that too, after a delay of 691 days, if we show any indulgence to this kind of opposite party, the very purpose of the act would be frustrated and the proceedings will be mockring and in this view also the unnumbered CMP should be rejected as not maintainable.



    11. In the result, the unnumbered CMP is rejected.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI

    FIRST APPEAL NO.1812 OF 1998 Date of filing: 02/08/1998

    IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.351/1995

    DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MUMBAI SUBURBAN

    Date of order : 18/11/2009

    1. Shri K.F.Paul &

    2. Sou.R.Paul

    12, Ritz, 87, N.B.Patil marg

    Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ……Appellants/org.complainants

    V/s.

    State Bank of India (N-1)

    Bombay Main branch

    Mumbai Samachar marg

    Mumbai 400 023 ……Respondent/org.O.P.

    Quorum: Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

    Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

    Present: Appellant in person.

    : ORAL ORDER:

    Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

    1. Heard appellant in person. This appeal is directed against the order passed in consumer complaint no.351/1995 by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum on 06/02/1997. Said complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum holding that the complainant is not a consumer.

    2. The complainant wanted to purchase 200 shares of Somani Cement Co.Ltd. and therefore, he submitted an application along with Rs.2000/- to purchase the shares in the stock invest. After the said amount was deposited as per the scheme for purchase of the shares, complainant did not receive any shares from the company namely Somani Cement Co.Ltd. Therefore, he made an enquiry and it was found that his application and amount was not sent by the respondent State Bank of India to the said company and, therefore, he could not get the shares. Under these circumstances, he demanded his money back from the State Bank of India. However, State Bank of India has not paid the amount and, therefore, complainant has filed this complaint.

    3. What is to be noted that Somani Cement Co.Ltd. has appointed State Bank of India as bankers for the said issue and complainant had an account with the State Bank of India. He gave instructions to the State Bank of India and appropriate instruction was negotiated in favour of State Bank of India. However in spite of that further process of the application was not made and therefore, complainant states that he is entitled to receive back the said amount. Under these circumstances, service which was to be rendered by the State Bank of India, namely, the respondent was to accept the money and process the application for the issue of shares with said company. Said service has not been provided and, therefore, complaint has been filed. From this application, it prima facie, appears that there is deficiency in service and complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reliance is placed on Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund V/s. Kartick Das in Civil Appeal no.4584 of 1994 reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 225’s has no application in the facts and circumstances of our case. We find that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in law. Hence the following order:-

    ORDER

    1. Impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Consumer Forum for further evidence.

    2. District Consumer Forum shall dispose of the complaint in accordance with the law. Since the complaint is pending since 1995, District Consumer Forum is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of 8 weeks after receipt of the order.

    3. Appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

    4. In the facts and circumstances, no cost of the appeal.

    5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    F.A.No.1506/2007 against C.C.No.30/2007, Dist.Forum, Karimnagar.
    Between:

    The Branch Manger,

    State Bank of India,

    ADB Branch , Jagtial Mandal,

    Karimnagar District. …Appellant/

    Opposite party no.2
    And

    1.Sri Mohd Siraj Ahmed,

    Son of Sri Mohd Shaik Bandagi,

    Aged about 56 years, C/o.Kwality Collections ,

    near Marked Road, Jagtial Proper and Mandal,

    Karimnagar District. …Respondent/

    Complainant

    2. The Post Master, Head Post Office,

    Jagtial Mandal, Karimanagr District. …Respondent/

    Opp.party no.1



    3. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank,

    Meerut Branch, Post Meerut,

    Utter Pradesh. …Respondent/

    Opp.party no. 3

    (Respondents 2 and 3 are only formal parties

    to this appeal and no notice is required to them.)

    Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.V.D.Narasimha Rao

    Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. P.Raja Sripathi Rao-R1

    F.A.No.746/2008 against C.C.No.30/2007, Dist.Forum, Karimnagar.



    Between:

    The Post Master, Head Post Office,

    Jagtial Mandal, Karimanagr District. … Appellant/

    Opp.party no.1

    And

    1. Mohd Siraj Ahmed,

    S/o. Mohd Shaikh Bandagi,

    Aged 46 years, C/o.Kwality Collections ,

    near Market Road, Jagtial Proper and Mandal,

    Karimnagar District. …Respondent/

    Complainant

    2.The Branch Manger,

    State Bank of India,

    ADB Branch , Jagtial Mandal,

    Karimnagar District. … Respondent /

    Opposite party no.2


    3. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank,

    Meerut Branch, Post Meerut,

    Utter Pradesh. …Respondent/

    Opp.party no. 3
    Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.Vinod Kumar , Addl Standing

    Counsel for Central Govt.

    Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. P.Raja Sripathi Rao=R1

    CORAM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

    AND

    SRI K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE MEMBER.

    MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER,

    TWO THOUSAND NINE.

    Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
    Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.30/2007 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the second opposite party preferred F.A.No.1506/2007 and the first opposite party preferred F.A.No. 746/2008.



    The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant in the course of his business dealings with a trading company of Mr.Devender Kumar Mahender Kumar, Delhi purchased a demand draft in the name of Yogesh Trading Company payable at New Delhi for an amount of Rs.39,850/- on 16.9.2006 vide D.D.No.920357 from the opposite party no.2 bank and the same was sent to Sandeep Garments (S.G.) Devender Kumar, Mahender Kumar through registered post ack. due on 16.9.2006 through the opposite partyno.1 post office. Thereafter the said Sandeep Garments company informed the complainant over phone that neither the registered post letter nor demand draft was received by them. Immediately the complainant lodged a complaint dt.7.10.2006 to the Superintendent of Post Office, Karimnagar to intimate the delivery of the registered letter no.A 2770 dt.16.9.2006 for which he received a reply on 14.11.2006 that a search bill was issued to trace the disposal and the complainant awaited for his report upto 26.11.2006 and again drafted a letter on 27.11.2006 to settle the complaint as early as possible. The S.P.O. ,Karimnagar addressed a letter to the opposite party no.2 on 30.11.2006 with a copy to the complainant to issue a duplicate demand draft if the original was not encashed. The complainant submits that the S.P.O., Karimnagar finally on 18.12.2006 informed that the registered letter was delivered on 19.9.2006 to the address written on the envelope. When the complainant enquired he was informed that the letter was not received by the addressee and once again he addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Post Offices , Karimnagar on 12.2.2007 and also submits that he wrote a letter to opposite party no.2 on 7.10.2006 to stop payment of DD no.920357 dt.16.9.2006 for an amount of Rs.39,850/-. the Opposite party no.2 addressed a letter on 11.10.2006 to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India to issue non payment advice as the DD was lost in transit . Thereafter on enquiry , the complainant was informed that the DD was credited in A/c. no.205000004887 of HDFC Bank , Meerut who is the opposite party no.3 herein in the account of Mr.Arvind and immediately the complainant contacted with the said person who only abused the complainant. The complainant again visited the opposite party no.3 bank on 8.2.2007 and the bank informed him that the DD was illegally encashed by Mr.Arvind who is at lodge and not available for settlement. The complainant submits that the postal officials in collusion with the said Mr.Aravind fraudulently took possession of the DD and encashed it in the Benami Account for which the complainant suffered mental agony and heavy loss in the business. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund the DD amount of Rs.39,850/- with interest at 9% from the date of issuance of DD till the realization of amount, to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation , Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred and to pay costs of Rs.2000/-.



    Opposite party no.1 filed counter admitting that the complainant handed over the registered letter on 16.9.2006 at their office for which a receipt was issued and the said letter was addressed to Sandeep(SG) Devender Kumar, Delhi and this envelope was closed and sealed and opposite party does not know its contents. On 12.2.2007 a complaint was received by the S.P.O., Karimnagar from the complainant about the loss of registered letter on which the S.P.O addressed a letter to the Sub-Post Master, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 with a request to enquire and ascertain the delivery particulars of registered letter on which it was informed that the said letter was correctly delivered on 19.9.2006 to M/s.Gyan Ganga & Company as per the address written on the envelope. The opposite party submits that as per clause 84 of the Post Office Guide Part 1 read with Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act,1898 , the opp.party no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation as the registered letter was sent without insuring the envelope as it contained a demand draft and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Sub Post Master, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and also submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



    Opposite party no.2 filed counter affidavit stating that on 16.9.2006 the complainant purchased a demand draft for Rs.39,850/- in favour of Yogesh Trading Company payable at New Delhi and states that they are not aware with regard to the sending of said demand draft through opp.party no.1 to Devender Kumar. The opposite party submits that their service branch at New Delhi received the demand draft from HDFC Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch, Delhi for collection of the amount and the amount was paid through the service branch of State Bank of India on 20.9.2006. The opposite party contends that they have received a letter from the opp.party no.1 and the complainant to stop payment informing about mis placement of demand draft but by that time the amount was already credited to the account of Yogesh Trading Company in their account with HDFC Bank. The opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



    The opposite party no.3 remained exparte.



    District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.B1 to B7 and the pleadings put forwards allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.39,850/- towards the amount of demand draft and Rs.2,000/- towards compensation together with Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint.



    Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no.2 preferred F.A.No.1506/2007 and opposite party no.1 preferred F.A.No.746/2008. .

    The facts not in dispute are that the complainant sent a Demand Draft vide Ex.A2 registered post through opposite party no.1 to Sandeep Garments (S.G.) Devender Kumar Mahender Kumar. It is the complainant’s case that the DD was drawn in favour of Yogesh Trading Company and when he came to know about non delivery of the registered letter to the addressee he lodged a complaint vide Ex.A7 to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karimnagar and he was informed vide Ex.A8 that they are taking steps to trace the cover. Thereafter the complainant received information from the opposite party no.2, New Delhi that the amount covered under the demand draft was credited to the account of Mr.Aravind in H.D.F.C. Bank Meerut. When the complainant enquired from the Sub Post Master, Delhi about the demand draft he was informed vide Ex.A9 that the registered letter was delivered to the address given on the cover. In response to the letter sent by Superintendent of Post Offices, Karimnagar regarding non delivery of registered letter, the Sub Post Master, Gandhi Nagar Post Office sent a search letter under Ex.B5 dt.11.12.2006 in which he reported that the registered letter was delivered to M/s.Gyan Ganga & Company on 19.9.2006. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.2 submitted that the demand draft was purchased by the complainant and he must have posted it to the concerned person but that they have nothing to do except make the payment when the instrument came up for payment through clearance form HDFC bank on 19.9.2006 which the appellant had promptly paid. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite partyno.2 bank contended that the complainant ought to have approached the appellant herein instead of making correspondence with the service branch at Delhi. The appellant/opposite party no.2 states that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seeks for dismissal of the complaint.



    It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.1 Post Master that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee mentioned on the cover and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and that under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act the liability of the Postal Department is exempted for the reason of loss, mis delivery or delay or damage unless it is caused by fraudulently or by willful act or default. The contents of the registered letter was not declared at the time of booking and the postal Department has taken all steps to locate the said letter and there is no willful delay or deficiency in service on their behalf. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.1 also contended that the registered letter was not insured and as such there is no contractual liability to cover all the risks in the course of transmission by post and the object of the registration is to make the transmission of the article more secure as it passes through the hands of many post offices and for loss of a registered article the appellant is not responsible and under Section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act, the government shall not incur any liability for the reason of loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss etc. unless he has caused the same fraudulently and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf. Ex.B5 is the letter dt.11.12.2006 in which the Post Master reported that the registered letter was delivered to M/s.Gyan Ganga Company on 19.9.2006, but as per Ex.A3 postal receipt the name of addressee written on the cover is Sandeep (S.G.) Devender Kumar, Delhi. There is no explanation put forward by the opposite party no.1 as to how the address of Sandeep (S.G.) Devender Kumar has changed to Gyan Ganga and Company. Any amount of willful fraud by the employee of the Postal Department cannot be ruled out. When the registered cover has been accepted by collecting charges, it is the duty of appellant post office to deliver it consciously. However the contention of the appellant/opposite party no.1 post office in F.A.No.746/2008 that the contents were not declared is sustainable since when the complainant is sending DD through registered post he ought to have declared the contents of the registered cover which he did not do so in the instant case and hence cannot ask the appellant post office to pay the entire DD amount. There are no substantial grounds as to how the registered envelope was delivered to M/s.Gyan Ganga and Company when it was actually addressed to Sandeep (SG) Devender Kumar , New Delhi for which act of deficiency in service the appellant post office cannot take umbrage under Section 6 of the Post Office Act since this act of deficiency cannot be done without willful fraud of an employee of the department. Therefore we are of the considered view that this appellant post office is liable to pay a reasonable compensation of Rs.5,000/-.



    The act of opposite party no.2 bank in F.A.No.1506/07 in crediting the amount when the instrument came up for clearing on 19.9.2006 cannot be termed as deficiency in service since it is not the case of the complainant that he informed the bank to stop payment prior to the bank having received the instrument for clearance. The complainant himself submits in his affidavit in para 5 that he addressed a letter to the opposite party no.2 bank on 7.10.2006 to stop payment of the DD which is dt.16.9.2006 while the demand draft was duly paid on 20.9.2006 by the payee bank at Delhi i.e. Service Branch of S.B.I. , New Delhi which is prior to letter dt.7.10.2006 addressed by the complainant to opposite party no.2. Though the complainant was put to lot of mental agony because of non delivery of the said letter to the correct address and the demand draft in his registered envelope having been encashed by an imposter Mr. Aravind, the Post Office nor the bank cannot be made to pay the entire DD amount since the complainant did not declare the contents of the registered cover while sending it nor did he take steps to inform the bank immediately but informed only on 7.10.2006 to stop payment by which time the bank already paid the amount on 20.9.2006.



    The HDFC Bank i.e. opposite party no.3 did not file counter and also did not state as to how the said Mr.Arvind had opened the account and was able to encash a DD which was in the name of a company if the bank had been diligent. Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party no.3 bank is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for not having taken proper precautionary steps prior to sending the instrument for clearing to opposite party no.2 bank. Hence the appeal F.A.No.746/2008 filed by the Post Master, Head Post Office, Karimnagar is allowed in part and his liability is restricted to an amount of Rs.5,000/- and appeal no.1506/2007 filed by the opposite party no.2 bank is allowed with no liability fastened on them and the order of the District Forum is set aside with respect to opposite party no.2 only and the order of the District Forum is modified i.e. opposite party no.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- and opposite party no.3 is directed to pay the DD amount of Rs.39,850/- together with compensation of Rs.5000/- and also to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs as awarded by the District Forum.



    In the result F.A.No.1506/2007 filed by the opposite party no.2 is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside with respect to opposite party no.2 alone. F.A.No.746/2008 is allowed in part and the liability of opposite party no.1 is restricted to Rs.5000/- only and the order of the District Forum is modified as hereunder :

    1.The opposite party no.1 i.e. Post Master, Head Post , Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within four weeks.

    2.The case against opposite party no.2 is dismissed .

    3.Opposite party no.3 bank is liable to pay the DD. amount of Rs.39,850/- to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.5000/- and also to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs as awarded by the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 85 of 2008

    Mahammad Harun, son of Late Musa Md., aged about 60(sixty) years, Occupation- Business, R/o and Po. Padampur, Po. Rajborasambar, Dist. Bargarh

    ... ... ... Complainant.

    - V e r s u s -

    Branch Manager, S.B.I., Padampur Branch, At/Ps. Padampur, Po. Rajborasambar, Dist. Bargarh.

    ... ... ... Opposite Party.

    Counsel for the Parties:-

    For the Complainant:- Sri M.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.

    For the Opposite Party:- Sri B.K. Mahapatra, Advocate.

    -: P R E S E N T :-

    Sri Gouri Shankar Pradhan ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

    Sri Binod Kumar Pati ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

    Miss Bhagyalaxmi Dora ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

    Dt.05/11/2009 -: J U D G E M E N T :-

    Presented by Sri B. K.Pati, Member .

    In brief, the case of the Complainant is that on D.31/03/2008 he deposited a cheque of Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur Branch for an amount of Rs.3,800/-(Rupees three thousand eight hundred) only to be collected in his State Bank of India, Padampur Branch account number 11530004216. On the same day the Opposite Party Bank after confirming through Internet that the issuing authority had sufficient money for encashment of the said cheque, deducted Rs.60/-(Rupees sixty) only from the cheque amount towards service charges and credited Rs.3,740/-(Rupees three thousand seven hundred forty) only the account of the Complainant. The Complainant withdrew the amount on Dt.05/04/5008 in A.T.M. Counter at Nagpur, on Dt.29/08/2008 the Complainant submitted withdrawal form to withdraw Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) only from State Bank of India, Padampur Branch but the concerned clerk returned the withdrawal form stating that there was no such amount in the account though Rs.1003.34/-(Rupees one thousand three and thirty four paise) only was balance in his account on that date. The Complainant came to know that his account was seized as the cheque could not be collected due to delayed submission by the Opposite Party Bank for which the Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur refused to honour the cheque. The Complainant vide his Regd. Letter Dt.22/10/2008 requested to up date his account and restore functioning of the A.T.M. transaction of the account within 15(fifteen) days after receipt of the letter. The Bank directed the Complainant to deposit Rs.3,740/-(Rupees three thousand seven hundred forty) only in his account for the functioning of the A.T.M. transaction. The Opposite Party Bank has not up dated the account and the A.T.M. transaction for which the Complainant is suffering mentally, physically and in his business. He claims a compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only from the Opposite Party Bank for causing such sufferings.

    The Opposite Party in its version admit the deposit of a cheque of Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur Branch for an amount of Rs.3,800/-(Rupees three thousand eight hundred) only but denies that the cheque could not be collected as the same was not sent to Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur for collection due to negligence of the Opposite Party Bank. The Opposite Party contends that the cheque issued on Dt.15/01/2008 was submitted by the Complainant on Dt.31/03/2008 which has a validity period of only three months. The Complainant assured to co-operate the Opposite Party in case the cheque could not be collected in time as there was only fifteen days left for the purpose and the Opposite Party deducted Rs.60/-(Rupees sixty) only towards collection charges and sent the cheque to Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur Branch for collection which was received by the said Branch on Dt.10/04/2008. In view of the nature of the cheque, the Opposite Party awaiting collection, credited Rs.3,740/-(Rupees three thousand seven hundred forty) only in the account of the Complainant which the Complainant withdrew while operating the account. The cheque whose validity was till Dt.15/04/2008, only fifteen day left by the time it was presented to Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur to clearing. Consequently, this was returned unpaid by the Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur. The Opposite Party was intimated about this fact through State Bank of India, Service Branch, Nagpur on Dt.23/04/2008. The Opposite Party requested the Complainant to revalidate the cheque but Complainant did not take delivery of the same from the Opposite Party with the contention that he has given the cheque with in the period of validity and advised the Opposite Party to do the needful at its end. The Opposite Party made correspondence with the payee Branch consequently in A.T.M. facility was automatically seized/with held. But in spite of the delicacy of the Opposite Party, the Complainant served a notice on the Opposite Party on Dt.22/10/2008 to update the account and functioning of the A.T.M.. In response, the Opposite Party has again credited the amount deducted i.e. Rs.1003.34/-(Rupees one thousand three and thirty four paise) only consisting of minimum balance of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) only to the account of the Complainant on Dt.15/12/2008 i.e. (prior to the date of institution of the present proceeding). The Opposite Party says that it sent the cheque in time for collection and the circumstance under which the cheque could not be collected from the payee Branch is not known to the Opposite Party and this Opposite Party has not role in it. This Opposite Party has not caused any deficiency in providing service to the petitions and hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief or compensation from this Opposite Party Bank and the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

    Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-

    The cheque in question was issued on Dt.15/01/2008 and admittedly the same was deposited by the Complainant for collection on Dt.31/03/2008, to be collected from the Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur Branch for which only fifteen days validity period was left to make the entire transaction complete. The cheque was sent by the Opposite Party for collection and the same was received by State Bank of India, Service Branch, Nagpur on Dt.10/04/2008. The Opposite Party has credited Rs.3,740/-(Rupees three thousand seven hundred forty) only (after deducting the service cheque of Rs.60/-(Rupees sixty) only from the cheque amount) in his account which the Complainant has withdrawn. The validity of the cheque has lapsed by the time it was presented to Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur through clearing and it was returned unpaid by the Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur. This Opposite Party was intimated about this fact through State Bank of India, Service Branch, Nagpur on Dt.23/04/2008. The Complainant has not responded to the request of the Opposite Party to revalidate the cheque and the A.T.M. facility of the Complainant was automatically seized/with held. After receiving of the notice Dt.22/10/2008 from the Complainant to update his account and functioning of the A.T.M. the Opposite Party has again credited the amount deducted i.e. Rs.1003.34/-(Rupees one thousand three and thirty four paise) only (including the minimum balance of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) only in the account of the Complainant on Dt.15/12/2008.

    The fact and circumstance reveal that the Opposite Party Bank has not committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant. Rather, it has credited the cheque amount after deducting the service charges of Rs.60/-(Rupees sixty) only in the account of the Complainant before the collection of the said amount even though only fifteen days of validity period of the cheque was left while it was submitted for collection by the Complainant. The Complainant withdrew the amount and while the account and the operation of the A.T.M. was seized in view of the lapse of the cheque only Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) only was left (excluding the minimum in the an account) which was only a fraction of what the Opposite Party Bank had already paid to the Complainant before the collection of the cheque amount.

    In view of the above finding, it is concluded that the Opposite Party Bank has not committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.104/2009.


    Pramila Bhoi (35 Yrs,),

    W/o: Late Nandakishor Bhoi,

    Ro/Po: Rangadhipa,

    Ps: Town,Dist: Sundargarh,Orissa. .............................Complainant.


    Versus


    1. The Branch manager,

    State Bank of India, Main Branch,Sundargarh,

    Ps/Dist; Sundargarh, Orissa.


    2. Head (Claims),

    SBI Life Insurance Company Limited,

    Central processing Center,Kapas Bhawan,

    Plot No. 3A,Sector No. 10,CBD Belapur,

    Navi Mumbai- 400 614................................................Opp. Parties.


    Counsel for the parties:-


    For the Complainant Sri P.k.patel, N.K.Naik,Advs. .

    For the Opp .Party-1 Sri P.Behera, Adv. & Ors..

    For the Opp .Party-2 Sri S.k.Das,Adv. & Ors.



    O R D E R Dated : 04.11.09



    Md. Inclab Ummar, President:-


    Deficiency in service is the complaint of the complainant.


    1. In brief the case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant availed housing loan from the O.P on dt.12.,11.08 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only . As per the terms and conditions all the housing loan borrower's are covered under SBI life Suraksha policy and accordingly the said husband of the complainant was also granted the said policy and a sum of Rs.2260/- was deducted towards the premium for the said policy and a certificate of insurance on dt.30.05.08was issued to that effect.

    -2-

    The husband of the complainant Nandakishor Bhoi died on 07.06.08 at the Dist. Head Quarter Hospital, Sundargarh then after the death of Nandakishor Bhoi his wife claimed the insured amount but O.P repudiated the claim of the complainant as the policy holder died on 31 days from the date of commencement of the policy vide letter dt. 09.12.08. Further it has been stated in the letter that the policy would have been valid if the deceased would have died after 45 days from the date of commencement of the policy for which the complainant has filed the instant dispute case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only towards sum assured and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.


    2. The O.Ps. appeared through their learned advocates and filed the written version wherein it has been submitted that the husband of the complainant Nanda kishor Bhoi is the deceased life assured was applied for insurance under the SBI housing loan group schemes for a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. The date of commencement of the policy is 08.05.08 and the husband of the complainant died on 07.06.08 within 31 days of commencement of the policy.


    As per the terms and conditions of the policy clause no.6 of the schedule II the O.P.No.2 is not liable to pay the insurance benefits if the death occurs within 45 days of the commencement of the policy. Thus nothing is payable under the policy. The O.P also submitted a decision of Hon'ble National commission Revision petition No. 984/08 in their support.

    3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the documents as filed by the parties in their support and we have gone through the case in detail. The insured is not entitled to the benefit in case the death has taken place within a period of 45 days of the date of issue of the policy i.e. Commencement of as per the terms conditions of the policy and we find no merit in the case as per the terms and conditions of the policy for which the complaint petition is dismissed.

    The case is disposed off accordingly.

    Complainant is dismissed.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Present: Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President.
    Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member.
    C.C.No.81/2009

    Jay Narayan Tripathy,

    Vill:Romilane,Badambadi,

    PO:Telenga Bazar,PS:Madhupatna,

    Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.

    Vrs.

    1. Bharadwaj Ryali,

    Payment Assistant Unit,

    S.B.I. CARD and Payments Service Pvt. Ltd.,

    DLF,Infinity Tower-C,

    12th Floor,Block-2,Building-3,

    DLF Cybercity,Gurgaon,Haryana.


    2. Manager, Customer Care,

    S.B.I. Credit Card, Division, Plot No.90-A,Udyog Bhawan,

    Sector-18, New IFCO Chowk,Gurgaon,

    Haryana.

    3. S.B.I.Card QRU Department,

    Infinity Tower-C, DLF Phase-2,

    Gurgaon,Haryana.



    4. Manager,

    Payment Assistant Unit,

    S.B.I. CARD and Payments Service Pvt. Ltd.,

    DLF,Infinity Tower-C,

    12th Floor, Block-2, Building-3,

    DLF Cybercity, Gurgaon, Haryana.



    JUDGMENT DT.26.11.09



    Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President.



    Alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties., the present complaint is filed.

    1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he is the holder of S.B.I.Credit Card bearing No.4317575024365547. While the matter stood thus he received a bill under Annex-1 showing total outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.29,539.87 out of which on 8.8.06 he paid a sum of Rs.1,867.00 as reflected under Annex-2. After making such payment though the complainant requested the Customer Care Centre for closing the Credit Card, he was advised over phone to make a deposit of Rs.24,610.50p as per the accounts statement under Annex-2. The said amount was deposited by the complainant as reflected under Annex-3. Though the said amount was paid still then the Credit Card was not closed on the other hand Annex-3 the bill reflected that total outstanding against him was Rs.3,870.76. Therefore the complainant issued a letter under Annex-4 to Opposite Party No.1 requesting him to close the account and to issue no due certificate. After receipt of the said Annex-4, the complainant received Annex-5 from Customer Care Services intimating him that his Credit Card have been made inactive for using. Even after receipt of Anne-5, he received Annex-7 wherein the complainant was asked to make a further deposit of Rs.4,601.97 before 31.7.07, so that his account will be finally settled and the Credit Card will be closed. Accordingly the complainant made a deposit of Rs.4602/- which is reflected under Annex-8. Even after deposit of the said amount of Rs.4602/-, the complainant received the monthly statement under Annex-8 showing balance outstanding of Rs.5243.51. That being so according to complainant such demand by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service as such filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and excess amounts deposited by him.

    2. Though the Opposite Parties received notice from this Forum, no appearance was made as such they have been set exparte.

    3. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings as well as the documentary evidence produced it appears to us that the demand as made under Annex-8 is challenged by the complainant and according to the complainant he is no more liable to make any payment after the letter under Annex-7 issued to him. After going through Annex-7, it is seen that the complainant was given an opportunity to settle the outstanding dues of Rs.9,203.95 by making a payment of Rs.4601.97 before 31.7.07 and in view of Annex-7 the complainant made payment of Rs.4602.00 vide cheque No.303471 dt.28.7.07 as found from Annex-8, monthly statement. Therefore according to us once such amount have been deposited by the complainant basing on Annex-7, the Opposite Parties are estopped from making further claim of Rs.5,243.51 under Annex-8. That being so while allowing the complaint petition we restrained the Opposite Parties from claiming any amount as per Annex-8, on the other hand direct the Opposite Parties to close the Credit Card of the complainant and to issue him no due certificate within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

    Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of November,2009 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    C.D.Case No. 14 of 2008

    1. Sarat Chandra Mohanty, S/o. Late Narayan Mohanty, aged about 60 years,

    2. Bhagirathi Mohanty, S/o. Sarat Chandra Mohanty,, aged about 26 years,

    Both by Occupation – Cultivation, R/o. village Mursundhi, P.O. Mursundhi, P.S. Birmaharajpur, District - Subarnapur

    ………… Complainant

    Vrs.

    The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mursundhi Branch, At/P.O. Mursundhi, P.S. Birmaharajpur, District - Subarnapur

    ………… Opp. Party

    Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri O.P.Pradhan

    Advocate for the Opp. Parties …………. Sri B.C. Panda

    Present

    1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President

    2. Smt. N.Parwin, Lady Member

    3. Sri A. Mishra, Male Member

    Date of Judgement Dt.26.11.2009

    J U D G E M E N T

    By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.


    The complainants both father and son have filed this complaint against the B.M., S.B.I., Mrusundhi Branch alleging deficiency of service on his part. The grouse of the complainants are common. Their case is that the complainant No.1 availed crop loan of Rs.44,000/- and complainant No.2 availed crop loan of Rs.40,000/- for Rabi crop for the year 2006-07. Being instructed by the O.P. they deposited Rs.2,000/- each towards premium of crop insurance. There was Rabi crop failure for the year 2006-07 for which the complainants suffered loss of about Rs.15,000/-. On 27.1.2008 the complainants requested the O.P. to take step for immediate disbursement of insurance amount to them but the O.P. told them that no insurance was made in respect of their crop.



    On these allegations the complainants have claimed that the O.P. be directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards crop insurance, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and hardship. They have also claimed cost of litigation.

    -: 2 :-



    The O.P. has filed written version. According to him he has never asked the complainants to deposit Rs.2000/- each towards premium at any point of time. According to him each of the complainants have repaid Rs.2,000/- on 14.11.2006 for their loan account which is reflected in the statement of account of the complainants. According to him as there is no deposit of premium by the complainants no declaration of crop failure by the insurance company, question of negligence by the O.P. does not arise. It is alleged by him that as no process fee is paid by the complainants they are not consumers U/s.2(d) of the C.P.Act.

    We have heard the complainants in person, the O.P. represented through his lawyer. From the pleadings of the parties the following points require consideration.

    1. Are the complainants consumer ?

    2. Have they paid Rs.2,000/- each towards insurance premium or it was paid towards repayment of loan ?

    3. Was there Rabi crop failure for the year 2006-07 ?

    4. To what relief the complainants are entitled ?

    It is true that no process fee for documentation for availing loan has been paid by the complainants. But the complainant pay interest for the loan incurred and the Bank is not doing any benevolent work in disbursing loan to them. So the submission of the learned counsel for the O.P. has got no force and it does not hold water. The complainants are consumers within the meaning of C.P.Act.



    Now the second point is taken up for consideration. We have perused the document filed by the complainant. In response to the loan application dt.30.10.2006 of the complainants, the O.P. has send letters to the complainants indicating there in the terms and conditions of the agricultural finance. The Xerox copy of the said letter is on the record. In clause (g) of the said letter there is provision for repayment which is reproduced below : (g) – Repayment – The loan is to be repaid in 45 days after harvest in clause (h) of the said letter there is provision for insurance. The Xerox copy of the application form for agricultural credit is also there on record. In this document in the page which has been marked as “ FOR OFFICE USE ” there is a heading Observations of apprising officer. In this heading there are 10 questions and the answer to this question
    -: 3 :-
    are given in the right hand side by giving tick mark on Y/N which stands for Yes or No. For our purpose question No.10 is relevant and the said question is reproduced below :- Whether crops are covered under crop insurance scheme ? The answer to the question is given in right hand side giving tick mark in the letter “ Y ” meaning thereby yes. In this document there is a page with a heading (Annexure A) In this page due date of repayment of this crop loan has been shown as April – May 2007. This document has been signed by the applicant as well as appraising officer. From this documents we ascertain that there was provision for crop insurance on the loan sanctioned to the complainants and the loan was sanctioned upto April / May 2007. We have gone through the Xerox copy of the pass books. From these documents it is ascertained that both the complainants have avail loan in two phases one on 30.10.2006 and another on 2.11.2006 and just after 12 days of receiving the loan in second phase they have deposited Rs.2,000/- each on 14.11.2006. So when the loan was sanctioned upto the month of April – May 2007 there was no need for them to repay Rs.2,000/- just after 12 days of receiving the loan amount. Under these facts and circumstances we are inclined to believe that both the complainants being instructed by the O.Ps.to deposit Rs.2,000/- each towards insurance premium have deposit the same as there was provision for the same in the loan sanctioned. For the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the deposits were made for repayment of loan and not towards insurance premium, then also the O.P. was duty bound to deduct the insurance premium from the loan amount sanctioned to the complainants and to credit the same to the account of the insurance company as there was provision for crop insurance in the loan sanctioned. For the reasons stated above we are of the considered opinion that there has been deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.



    Now the 3rd point is taken up for consideration. We have asked the complainant to produce evidence regarding Rabi crop failure for the year 2006-07. The documents filed by the complainant go to show Kharif crop failure for the year 2006-07 and from this we cannot come to the conclusion that there was also failure of the Rabi crop. In absence of cogent evidence we are unable to hold that there was failure of Rabi crop in the village during the year 2006-07.



    Now the next point that remains for consideration is to what relief the complainants are entitled.

    -: 4 :-
    Insurance plays a vital role in crop loan in as much as there are frequent crop failures leading to suicide by farmers. It is unfortunate that the O.P. who is a responsible officer of the bank has failed in his duty to insure the crop of the complainants.



    In the facts and circumstances of this case and to do justice to the complainants we allow a sum of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, sufferings and allied factors and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation and we order accordingly.

    It is hereby ordered as follows :-

    The O.P. shall pay Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, sufferings and allied factors and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainants within a period of one month from the date of order.

    Dated the 26th day of November 2009

    Typed to my dictation

    I agree I agree. and corrected by me.

    Smt. N.Parwin, Sri A.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak

    Lady Member Male Member President

    D.C.D.R.F.(S) D.C.D.R.F.(S) D.C.D.R.F.(S)

    Dt.26.11.09 Dt.26.11.09 Dt.26.11.09

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR

    C.D.Case No. 18 of 2008

    Sri Ashok Dani, S/o. Late Dukhishyam Dani, Gandhi Nagar Para, Bolangir, P.O./ P.S./District - Bolangir

    ………… Complainant

    Vrs.

    The Proprietor AKAY Steel, Club Road, Bolangir, At/P.O./P.S./District - Bolangir

    ………… Opp. Party

    Advocate for the Complainant …………. None

    Advocate for the Opp. Party …………. Sri A.K.Panigrahi

    Present

    1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President

    2. Smt. N.Parwin, Lady Member

    3. Sri A. Mishra, Male Member



    Date of Judgement Dt.1.12.2009

    J U D G E M E N T

    By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.

    This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of proprietor Akay Steel, Bolangir



    The case of the complainant is that the complainant approached corrugated sheets (GCI sheets) for roofing purpose from the O.P. on payment of Rs.27,472/- on 31.7.2008. After fixing it on the roof top for roofing purpose it was found that there was water leakage. The complainant requested the O.P. to replace the defective sheet, but in vain.



    The O.P. has filed written version. He has not disputed the purchase of the G.C.I. sheets on payment of Rs.27,472/-. According to him in the bill i.e. given to the complainant it has been clearly mentioned that there is no guarantee regarding the product sold. The complainant has purchased the G.C.I. sheets after verification. The O.P. has also claimed that complaint case is bad for non-joinder of parties as a manufacturer is not a party in this case. Hence he has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.



    As the complainant remained absent during hearing, we have heard the advocate for the O.P. and also perused the written notes of argument filed by him. We are deciding this case basing on the material available on record and upon examination of the submissions made by the advocate for the O.P.
    -: 2 :-

    From the averments in the complaint petition, written version filed by the O.P., submissions made by advocate for the O.P. the following points require determination in this case :-



    i. Is the complaint bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?

    ii. Has there been any deficiency of service by the O.P. ?



    We find that the manufacturer of the GCI sheets is a necessary partty in this case. Our view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992(2) S.C.C. 524 wherein their Lordships have held that necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and proper party is one in whose absence effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question in the proceeding. Although the complainant filed a petition to make the manufacturer a party, after filing the said petition he remained absent on so many dates and did not press the petition. In absence of proper address memo we are not in a position to notice the manufacturer. For the reasons stated above we are of the considered view that this complaint case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.



    Now so far as the second point is concerned we ascertained from the receipt filed by the complainant that there has been no provision of guarantee in the product sold. This receipt has been signed both by the complainant as well as O.P. The complainant who is a literate person must have signed it after understanding its implication. Again if at all there was any manufacturing defect in the product sold the O.P. cannot be held liable in as much as he is a distributor and not the manufacturer of the product. So we have not found any deficiency of service on his part.



    In the aforesaid premises we come to the conclusion that this complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.



    Dated the 1st day of December 2009

    Typed to my dictation

    I agree I agree. and corrected by me.
    Smt. N.Parwin, Sri A.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak

    Lady Member Male Member President

    D.C.D.R.F.(S) D.C.D.R.F.(S) D.C.D.R.F.(S)

    Dt.1.12.09 Dt.1.12.09 Dt.1.12.09

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR

    C.D.Case No. 2 of 2008



    Ratnakar Seth, S/o. Kalakanhu Sethi, At/P.O./ P.S.–Dunguripali, District - Sonepur

    ………… Complainant

    Vrs.

    1. The Collection Manager, ICICI Home Finance Collection Bank, At/ P.O. Ainthapali (Budharaja), P.S./District - Sambalpur



    2. Labani Kumar Sandha, S/o. Minketan Sandha, Authorised Agent of ICICI Home Finance Cop. Ltd. At/P.O./P.S. Ainthapali (Budharaja) Sambalpur, At present permanent resident of village Dumerpali, P.O. Gudesina, District - Bargarh

    ………… Opp. Parties

    Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri G.K.Mishra

    Advocate for the O.P.No.1 …………. Sri Sri H.B.Nayak

    Advocate for the O.P.No.2 …………. Sri Sri S.K.Sandha



    Present

    1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President

    2. Smt. N.Parwin, Lady Member

    3. Sri A. Mishra, Male Member



    Date of Judgement Dt.10.12.2009



    J U D G E M E N T

    By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.



    This complaint case has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Collection Manager I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Collection Bank and Labani Kumar Sandha alleged agent of the Bank.



    The case of the complainant is that he applied for loan to purchase scooter before the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 issued loan to him after entering into a hypothecation agreement. That on 19.3.2007 the O.P.No.2 who was the agent of O.P.No.1 came to the house of the complainant and took Rs.13671/- and issued a payment receipt of Rs.10,171/-. It is the further case of the complainant that the O.P.No.1 has illegally used six numbers of P.D.C. He has alleged that both the O.P.No.1 and 2 with their malafide intention have cheated and harassed the complainant. With these allegations the complainant has prayed for release of the loan amount of Rs.5525/- with interest in favour of the complainant and he has also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.



    The O.P.No.1 has filed written version. According to him the act of the collection agent working under the collection franchise was not within his
    -: 2 :-

    knowledge. He has also averred that the complainant is not a consumer, according to him averment of the petition reveal commission of criminal offence. Hence this case is not maintainable. According to him he has received payment of Rs.10171/- vide receipt No. L 7744355, out of which Rs.675/- has been adjusted towards bouncing charges and the rest amount has been adjusted towards payment of instalment. Accordingly he had prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.



    The O.P.No.2 has denied all the allegations of the complainant in the complaint petition. According to him the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the C.P.Act. He has also denied to have received a sum of Rs.3500/- in excess of the due. He has also challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum. Accordingly he has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

    From the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition, written version filed by the O.Ps., notes of argument filed by both the parties the following points requires determination in this case :

    1. Is the complainant a consumer within the meaning of C.P.Act and has the forum jurisdiction to entertain this complaint case ?

    2. Has the O.P. collected excess money and illegally used six numbers of P.D.C. thereby causing deficiency of service ?


    So far as the first point is concerned it is the averments of both the O.Ps. that since this is a case of hire purchase agreement it does not come within the purview of the Consumer Forum. We find that in the case of purchase of a Bus under hire purchase agreement and the default in payment of monthly instalment of hire money by the complainant leading to the temporary seizure of the bus by the financing bank without giving notice to the complainant bringing it to their notice that they have not paid the instalment amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the financing bank. (President Kriya Yoga Foundation Trust Vrs. Teem Finance company II (1994) C.P.J. 590 (595) (Orissa) ). From the above decision it is crystal clear that even transaction of bank under hire purchase agreement will also come within the purview of Consumer Forum, hence we are of the considered view that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act. So far as the jurisdiction of the Forum is concerned although the office of I.C.I.C.I Bank is situated on Sambalpur we find that this bank is carrying on its business in the district of Sonepur through its agent so this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case.


    -: 3 :-
    So far as the second point is concerned it is the allegation of the complainant that the O.P. No.2 has collected a sum of Rs.3500/- nine bounced cheque charges of Rs.225/- amounting to Rs.5525. We find from the receipt filed by the complainant that the O.P.No.2 has collected Rs.10171/- vide receipt No.L0107 – 7744355. This is also not disputed by O.P.No.2. This amount has been reflected in the statement of account of the bank filed in this case and this has been mentioned against the payment receipt vide cheque No.CA 7744355 receipt No. L – 7744355/dt.23.3.2007. If actually the O.P.No.2 took Rs.3500/- extra from the complainant, the complainant should have brought it to the notice of O.P.No.1 the financing bank by filing written complaint. But the complainant has not filed the copy of any complaint petition before us. Further more this fact is not corroborated by the version of witnesses. The complainant ought to have filed the affidavit of witnesses in order to prove that the O.P.No.2 took Rs.13671/- giving him a money receipt of Rs.10,171/- So in the absence of any cogent evidence we are not in a position to accept the allegation of the complainant. So we are of the considered view that deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further more, the complainant has alleged that the O.P. has cheated him with malafide intention. This forum is not competent to decide such allegation which ought to have been raised either before the criminal court or police.

    The case cited by the complainant is distinguishable from the present case and it of no help to the complainant.

    Since the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation against the O.Ps. by cogent evidence, we have no other option then to dismiss the complaint. In the result the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to suffers their own cost.

    Dated the 10th day of December 2009
    Typed to my dictation

    I agree I agree. and corrected by me.
    Smt. N.Parwin Sri A.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
    Lady Member Male Member President

    D.C.D.R.F.(S) D.C.D.R.F.(S) D.C.D.R.F.(S)

    Dt.10.12.09 Dt.10.12.09 Dt.10.12.09

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR

    C.D. Misc. Case No.1 of 2007

    1. Mukesh Pandey, S/o. Basudeb Pandey, At/P.O. Sukha, P.S. Dunguripali,

    2. Suchitra Padhan, D/o. Bhakta Charan Padhan,

    3. Nibedita Panda, D/o. Dhobai Charan Panda,

    4. Pragnya Paramita Sahu D/o. Krushna Chandra Sahu,

    Complainant No.2 to 4 R/o. village/P.O./P.S. Dunguripali, Dist. Subarnapur

    5. Mitu Seth, S/o. Tika Seth,

    6. Bijaya Kumar Behera, S/o. Ganesh Behera, At Chhanchani, P.O. Sargul, P.S. Dunguripali, District - Subarnapur

    7. Chumbilal Dwari, S/o. Niranjan Dwari, At Cherupali, P.S. Dunguripali, District – Subarnapur.

    ………… Complainants

    Vrs.

    1. Bhagaban Padhan, Branch Manager, Dunguripali College, Department of Computer Science, R/o. Hanumanpali, P.O. B.M.Pur, Dist - Subarnapur

    2. Bibhudatta Panda @ Mrutunjaya Panda, S/o. Surya Panda, Instructor Cum H.O.D., AISECT, Dunguripali At present At Champapur, P.O./P.S. B.M.Pur, District – Subarnapur.

    3. Santosh Kumar Padhi, District Co-ordinator, JVCEP, At Rajendra College Campus(AISECT), P.O./District - Bolangir

    4. Sanjeeb Barik, Teacher/Instructor, AISECT at Dunguripali at present at AISECT, Sonepur College Campus, Sonepur.

    5. The Director, AISECT, SCOPE CAMPUS, NH – 12 Bhaironpur (Near Mishroad), Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal – 26 (MP)

    6. Principal, Dunguripali College, District – Subarnapur.

    7. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar.

    ………… Opp. Parties

    Advocate for the Complainants …………. Sri H.B.Nayak

    Advocate for the O.P.No. 3 and 5 …………. Sri S.K.Sandha


    Present

    1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President

    2. Sri A. Mishra, Male Member


    Date of Judgement Dt.23.12.2009

    J U D G E M E N T

    By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.

    The complainants through their advocate have filed this Misc. Case to setting aside the order passed by this Forum in C.D.C. No.7/2006 on 2.1.2007.

    It is the case of the complainants that since the filing of this case the complainants appeared on all dates but the last i.e. 2.1.2007. According to them they are students of AICT of Dunguripali branch and their allegation is regarding non publication of their result and not providing their original mark sheet and certificates.
    -: 2 :-
    According to them their non appearance on the date of argument was not intentional but due to some bonafide mistake i.e. wrong entry in the diary of the advocate engaged by them. According to them unless the order of dismissal is set aside, the substantive rights of the complainant will be defeated and they will be prejudiced. The O.P.No.3 and 5 have filed objection. The other O.Ps. have not filed objection and they also did not take part in the hearing. The main objection of O.P.No.3 and 5 is that there is no statutory provision for restoration.



    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants as well as learned counsel for the O.Ps. Citing the case of Sri U.P. Chaturbedi Vrs. Deomani Kotedar decided by the Hon’ble M.P. State Commission and the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. R. Srinivasan decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued before us that although there is no provision for restoration in the C.P.Act, restoration is also not prohibited by the same Act. Therefore he insisted to restore the same case. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.3 and 5 on the other hand argued to dismiss the petition for restoration as there is no provision for the same in the C.P.Act. We have carefully heard the argument of the learned counsels and also given our anxious thoughts to the points raised by them. Admittedly there is no provision for restoration in the C.P.Act and this has also been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the complainants in his petition for restoration. It is profitable to quote Section 13 Sub-Section 4 of the C.P.Act, the provision of the said Sub-Section is quoted below :- Section 13 Sub-Section 4 for the purpose of this Section the District Forum shall have the same power as are vested in the Civil Court under the C.P.C. 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely ; (i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendants or witnesses and examining the witnesses on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavit, (iv) the requisitioning the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of the any witnesses, (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.



    From the above provision it is clear that Order 9 of C.P.C. has not been made applicable to proceedings under the C.P.Act. The provisions of C.P.C. has been made applicable to proceedings under the C.P. Act only to a limited extent.


    -: 3 :-

    In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. R. Srinivasan’s case in paragraph 18 of the judgement the Hon’ble Apex Court has held “ in absence of the complainant, therefore the court will be well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the non appearance of the complainant .”


    In the instant case we find that this case has not been dismissed on merit it has been dismissed on a date for default when it was fixed for argument. Since in this case students are involved, taking a lenient view and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, following the legal principle as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case we set aside the order of dismissal passed by this Forum in C.D.C. No.7/2006 on 2.1.2007 and restore the said case to its original position.

    We clarify that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter as it is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.


    We find that C.D.C. No.7/2006 is lingering in this forum since 2006. So parties are directed to appear before this Forum in C.D.C. No.7/2006 on 27.1.2010 for argument. No further notice will be issued in the said C.D.C. bearing No.7/2006. The advocate for complainants is directed to collect copy of this order from this office and copy of this order be sent to the O.Ps. under U.C.P. Petition is allowed.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    D.F.Case No.8/2008

    Complainant: Murari Das & Shobhabati Das,

    Kada Road, Gamon Colony,

    Durgapur-3, Chawki & Sub-division-Durgapur,

    Dist.-Burdwan

    VERSUS
    Opposite Party:1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

    Asansol Division, P.O.-Asansol, Dist.-Burdwan.

    2. The Sub-Post Master, P.O.-Durgapur-3,

    P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan.



    3. The Manager, State Bank of India,

    Main Gate Branch-0074, Durgapur-3,

    P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan.

    4. Raghunath Saha,,

    Benachity, Durgapur-13, Dists.-Burdwan.

    Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Tushar Kanti Paladhi

    Hon’ble Member : Sri Ajit Kr. Basu

    Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sukumar Mondal

    Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1 & 2: Ld. Advocate, Ranajit Ghosh.

    Appeared for the Opposite Party No.3: Omprakash Guhathakurata

    Appeared for the Opposite Party No.4: Not appeared.
    Date of delivery: 9.11.2009

    JUDGEMENT

    This is a case U/S 12 of C.P. Act, alleging deficiency in service against the O.P., and praying for direction for relief to the complainant.

    The complainant, Sri Murari Das was an employee of Durgapur Steel Plant, and he retired from service on 31.1.2006. The complainant No.1 in due course of his retirement obtained the retirement benefits i.e. C.M.P.F. Money being A/c. No.D.S.P./038606, Code No.84101 from the D.s.P. authority of Durgapur Steel Plant amounting to Rs.1,068,842/- which has been desposited on 7.2.2006 in the savings Bank Pass Book of State Bank of India, Main Branch at Durgapur-3, Dist.-Burdwan and on 8.2.2006 the manager of the said Bank issued a Banker’s cheque of Rs.100000/- in the name of complainant No.1

    On 8.2.2006 the complainant No.1 handed over the said Banker’s cheque of Rs.100000/- to Sri Raghunath Saha, an Authorised Govt. Agent of post office Benachity, Durgapur-13, Dist.-Burdwan. On 8.2.2006 the aforesaid Raghunath Saha, deposited the said Banker’s cheque of Rs.100000/- to the post office , Durgapur-3 to the O.P. No.2. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Sub-post Master, post office Durgapur-3, P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan i.e. O.P. No.2 deposit an amount in this manner i.e. Rs.600000/- would be deposited on MIS Scheme consisting of Rs.300000/- in the name of the complainant.

    That it was an outstanding offer 10% money of the deposited amount in MIS scheme will be returned as maturity bonus a the date of maturity. As a matter of fact the complainants are entitled to get Rs.60,000/- as maturity bonus on the aforesaid Rs.600000/- which would be effected upto 13.2.2006, whereas the complainant deposited the said Banker’s Cheque to the office of the Sub-post Master, P.O. Durgapur-3, P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan. So, as per the provision of existing rules and regulation the complainant would be entitled to get Rs.60,000/-as maturity Bonus on MIS on the amount of Rs.600000/-.

    Thereafter, the complainant came to know from the office of the Sub-post Master, P.O.-Durgapur, P.S.-Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan on 24.2.2006 that the complainant would not be entitled to get the maturity bonus of Rs.60,000/- on Rs.600000/- on MIS Scheme. When the complainant asked the Sub-post Master of Durgapur, P.S.-Durgapur in the matter of causing of not getting maturity bonus on MIS Scheme, the said post master refused to give the reply and directed to contact with Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Asansol Division, Dist.-Burdwan.

    Being aggrieved, the complainant filed this case before this Forum, and hence this case.

    The O.P. contests this case by filing written objection, stating that the post office has not able to en-cash the cheques due to holidays in between receipt of the cheques and the holidays within this period. The post office has reduced the bonus amount on MIS Scheme.

    Points for consideration in this case are:-

    1. Whether there is deficiency in service on part of the O.P. Post Office?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

    FINDING WITH REASONS



    On the basis of the submission of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and on view of this Forum, thee is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Post Office for not depositing the Banker’s cheque before the reduction of the date of bonus on MIS. Thus, the complaint case fails. C.F. paid is sufficient. Hence,

    ORDERED

    that the complaint case be rejected on contested.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Complaint case No. 73/2007 Date of disposal:13/11/2009

    BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. P. K. Sarkar.

    MEMBER : Mr. S. Pal.

    MEMBER : Smt. J. Sarkar. For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. D. Mandal.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S. : Mr. T. K. Mandal.

    (1) Dipak Kumar Jaiswal, S/o-K. L. Jaiswal of Janata Market, Golebazar, P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur(T), Dist Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.

    Vs.

    1) Sr. Manager, M/S: SBI Carda & Payments Service Pvt. Ltd., 11,Parliament Street, New Delhi, Pin-100001;

    2) The Manager, SBI Credit card collection, SBI, Collection centre, Fortune building (3rd floor0, Camac Street, Kolkata-700056;

    3) The Manager, SBI, Kharagpur Railway station branch, Kharagpur, Dist: Medinipur……………..Ops.

    The complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-

    The complainant got a credit card from the Op. no.1 through their agent, Sri Subrata Mukherjee. After using the credit card for sometime the complainant desired to surrender the card and accordingly contacted the customer care service of the Op. no.1 for the purpose. On 29/11/2006 the representative of the Op. no.1 collected the credit card from the complainant giving a receipt for such surrender. On 08/12/2006 one of the employees of the Op. no.1 came to the complainant and collected Rs.557/- being the outstanding dues from the complainant against proper receipt. But in the month of January, 2007, the Op. demanded a sum of Rs 43,388.30 from the complainant as outstanding dues payable by the complainant for using the credit card. Again on 08/06/2007 the Op. no.1 sent a lawyer’s letter demanding Rs.54,610.13 as outstanding dues for using the said credit card. According to the complainant, the demand of the said outstanding dues from him by the Op. no.1 for alleged use of the credit card after surrender of

    Contd………….P/2

    - ( 2 ) -

    the card by him in the month of November 2006 was illegal and amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Op. no.1. As such, the complainant filed this complaint against the

    Ops. praying for passing orders declaring the notice dated 08/06/2007 issued by the Op. no.1 to be illegal and without any basis and for payment of compensation for their deficiency in service and the litigation costs.

    The Op. nos. 1 and 2 have not turned up in spite of service of notice upon them. The Op. no.3 appeared in this case and filed their written objection contending interalia, that they are not concerned with the issuance of credit card to the complainant and as such they are not liable for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Op. nos. 1 and 2, if any.

    The points for decisions are :

    1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

    2) Whether the Ops. are deficient in service within the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) read with section 2(1) (o) of the C. P. Act, 1986 ?

    3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for?

    Decisions with reasons :

    Point No. 1.

    Admittedly the complainant took a credit card from the Op. no.1 and after using the same for some time he surrendered the card to the representative of the Op. no.1 on 29/11/2006. The complainant filed the instant complaint challenging the notice issued by the Op. no.1 in January 2007 demanding Rs.43,388.30/- and subsequent notice dated 08/06/2007 demanding Rs.54,610.13/- from the complainant against the credit card which was surrendered by him on 29/11/2006. Under the given facts and circumstances it must be held that the complainant was a consumer of the Op. no.1 within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C. P. Act 1986 read with section 2(1) (g) and 2(1)(o) of the Act.

    Point Nos.2 &3.

    The complainant has asserted in his complaint supported by affidavit that he surrendered the credit card no.4317575206217540 to the representative of the Op. no.1 on 29/11/2006 and the said representative of the Op. no.1 issued a surrender receipt in favour of the complainant; and that subsequently one of the employees of the Op. no.1 collected the outstanding dues of Rs.571/- from the complainant on 08/12/2006. The so-called surrender receipt (marked ‘X’ for identification) disclosed that a person named Rahul granted such receipt for surrender of the credit card by the complainant on 29/12/2006 on the letter head of the Op.

    Contd………….P/3

    - ( 3 ) -

    no.1 though the same was written neither as a receipt for surrender of the credit card nor an appropriate letter to the Op. no.1 for surrendering the credit card. Be that as it may, the Op. no.1 has failed to turn up to contest the claim of the complainant that he surrendered the credit card to the representative of the Op. no.1 on 29/11/2006 in spite of legal presumption of receipt of the notice issued by this Forum along with the complainant by registered post. It is evident from the statement of accounts issued by the Op. no.1 on 03/01/2007, that the Op. no.1 received Rs.557/- on 13/12/2006 which was collected by their agent, Mr.V. Govind Rao on 08/12/2006 from the complainant and that the outstanding dues of Rs.43,388.30/- as mentioned in the statement dated 13/01/2007 included the charges for using the credit card from 01/12/2006 onwards whereas the complainant claimed to have surrendered the credit card on 29/11/2006 to the representative of the Op. no.1 namely Mr. Rahul who issued the receipt (marked ‘X’ for identification) dated 29/11/2006 on the letter head of the Op. no.1. It is not understood how the outstanding dues of Rs.43,388.30/- included the charges for using the credit card from 01/12/2006 onwards in the statement dated 03/01/2007 when the complainant surrendered the card on 29/11/2006. Be that as it may, as the Op. no.1 failed to dispute the claim of the complainant that he surrendered the credit card to the representative of the Op. no.1 on 29/11/2006 even after receipt of notice regarding such complaint issued by this Forum, there is enough reasons to hold that the Op. no.1 illegally demanded the outstanding dues of Rs.43,388.30/- in January,2007 and Rs.54,610.13 in their lawyer’s notice dated 08/06/2007 against the credit card no. 4317575206217540 surrendered by the complainant on 29/11/2006. As such, we propose to declare the demand notice for Rs. 43,388.30/- issued by the Op. no.1 in January,2007 and their lawyer’s demand notice for Rs.54,610.30/-sent on 08/06/2007 against the credit card no. 4317575206217540 which was surrendered by the complainant on 29/11/2006, to be illegal and not binding upon the complainant. Thus, these issues are decided in favour of the complainant.

    Hence, it is

    ordered that the complaint be allowed ex-parte against the Op. nos.1 and 2 and on contest against Op. no.3. It is hereby declared that the notice demanding Rs.43,388.30/- in January,2007 and the lawyer’s notice dated 08/06/2007 demanding Rs.54,610.30/- issued on behalf of the Op. nos.1 & 2 are illegal and not binding upon the complainant. The Op. no.1 is further directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the

    Contd………….P/4

    - ( 4 ) -

    complainant within one month from the date of communication of the order, failing which they are liable to pay interest thereon @10% p.a. till payment.

    Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.

    Dic. & Corrected by me
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/228

    Naresh Shah
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    SBI Card
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:
    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 228 / 2008

    1) Naresh Shah,

    3, Janakidas Lane, Kolkata-700007.
    Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) SBI Card,

    234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20.
    Opposite Party

    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.

    Order No. 1 5 Dated 2 7 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 .

    It is the specific allegation of the complainant that on the basis of a publication in the newspaper India Today of SBI Card for the declaration of prize of Rs.25 lakhs the complainant drew a prize lottery and his name was selected and accordingly SBI Card sent a draft no.301359 for prize amount of Rs.88,000/- on 28.7.07 in August,2008 along with a letter of congratulation. But two months after the o.p. SBI Card asked him to return the amount because out of mistake it was sent to the complainant. They also asked him to return with monthly instalment. SBI Card should not call back the prize amount since their letter clearly spells out that it was prize amount. Moreover, there was no mention for returning the amount or interest. Accordingly, the complainant has filed this case and prays relief from this from.

    Decision with reason :

    It appears on perusal of the record that the case was admitted on 16.2.08. notices were sent to the o.ps. but as the o.ps. did not appear the case was heard ex parte. The complainant also filed an amendment petition on 6.11.08 incorporating therein that the amount of prize was Rs.88,000/-.

    We have perused the publication of SBI Card announcing Rs.25 lakhs as prize draw and we have also perused the demand draft no.301359 dt.28.7.07 wherein the prize amount in favour of the complainant Naresh Shah is Rs.88,000/-. They have also sent him the congratulation letter.
    It is the main grievance of the complainant that even in spite of winning the prize to the extent of Rs.88,000/- and receipt of draft for Rs.88,000/- the o.p. has asked him to return the said money, but the complainant has failed to submit even a scrawl of paper that actually the o.p. asked him to return the said amount of money for Rs.88,000/-. He has said in his petition of complaint that “two months later SBI Card asked me to return them amount because they said that it was sent by mistake or return in monthly instalment with interest”. In support of this contention the complainant has not filed any paper to show that the SBI Card asked him to return the amount or the amount was sent to him by mistake. So, in absence of any such letter it cannot be believed that the SBI Card actually asked him to return the said amount of money which they sent to the complainant by draft. We have also perused the affidavit of examination in chief of the complainant wherein he has said the same thing as made out in his petition of complaint.

    Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the case of the complainant and accordingly the o.p. SBI Card cannot be said to be liable either for deficiency of service or for unfair trade practice.

    Hence

    ordered

    the case is dismissed ex parte. Considering the circumstances, no order is passed as to cost. Fees paid are correct.

    Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/104

    Anjali Ghosh
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    SBI Credit Card Division
    ...........Respondent(s)
    BEFORE:
    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 104 / 2008


    1) Smt. Anjali Ghosh,

    Barasat, Garerdhar, Hooghly.
    Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) S.B.I. Credit Card Division,

    234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-10.
    Opposite Party

    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.


    Order No. 1 2 Dated 1 3 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 .

    The complainant Smt. Anjali Ghosh, by filing a petition u/s 12 of C.P. act, 1986 has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to pay an amount of Rs.150000/- as compensation towards the deficiency of service and mental agony caused by the o.p.

    The complainant applied for a credit card and it was duly issued in her name by the o.p. bearing no.4317575204722434. But, she had never used the card in question. And all on a sudden the o.p. sent a letter dt.3.2.07 whereby the o.p. demanded an amount of Rs.36,455/- along with an amount of Rs.3561.17 as minimum charge, which is a fictitious amount charged by the o.p. Again on 3.6.07, the o.p. sent another letter demanding for Rs.35067.09 along with a minimum charge of Rs.3425.23 from the complainant. After that the complain ant requested he o.p. to enquire the whole matter as the complainant never used the card in question. But the o.p. did not care to take any remedial step and continued to place its demand each and every month. And on 18.6.07, the complainant surrendered the card to SBI, Chandannagar after cutting into pieces on the advice of the bank authority.

    But even after that the o.p. placed the demand of Rs.37054.24 through a monthly statement dt.3.7.07 where the card number as mentioned was 4317575209243592, which was never allotted to the complainant. The complainant put her strong protest to the o.p. by her letters dt.20.7.07 and 21.7.07. Even the complainant met with an official of the o.p. and brought this fact to the notice of the o.p. and requested the o.p. not to raise and send such fictitious bill and letters as she never used the card no.4317575204722434 and she had never been issued the card no.4317575209243592. But the o.p. did not pay any hid to the request of the complainant and went on sending the fictitious bills.

    And finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case on 4.4.08. Notice was duly served upon the o.p. But none appeared and filed any w/v.

    Decision with reasons :

    From the petition of complaint we find the complainant never used the card in question and she never paid any amount in respect of any bill drawn by the o.p. in her name. But u/s 2 d (ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 to be a consumer, the complainant has to avail herself of the service of the o.p. on payment of the requisite fees and/or charges. But the complainant was issued a card by the o.p. which she never used for any consideration. Accordingly, the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions as provided u/s 2(d) of he C.P. act, 1986. Hence, the petition of complaint is dismissed for devoid of merit. No order as to cost is passed.
    Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/121

    Sri Rabin Richand Field
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.
    The Manager, State Bank of India, Credit Card Department and 2 others
    ...........Respondent(s)
    BEFORE:
    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.


    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 121 / 2008
    1) Sri Rabin Richand Field,

    108A, Bamungachi Railway Quarter,

    Howrah-711106.
    Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) The Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Credit Card Department,

    234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-26.

    2) The Manager, Customer Service,

    SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.

    Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana.
    3) SBI Local Head Office,

    11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
    Opposite Party

    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.

    Order No. 1 4 Dated 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9.

    Complainant Rabin Richand Field by filing a petition of complaint on 18.4.08 u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, as prayed for issuing direction upon the o.ps. to refund excess amount of Rs.91439/- paid by the complainant to the SBI Credit Card Deptt. along with @ 18% interest and a compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation cost and other relief or reliefs as the forum may deem fit and proper.

    It is the specific case of the complainant that he purchased a refrigerator and washing machine on 21.1.05 and 9.12.03 respectively from his credit card of SBI being bearing no.4317575204315833. He had to pay a sum of Rs.585/- and Rs.349/- as monthly instalment for 24 months respectively for those articles. He also received a pre-approved cash offer of Rs.35000/- from SBI Credit Card Deptt. on 31.5.05 and he had to repay the amount of the monthly instalment of Rs.1867/- for 24 months.

    He cleared all the instalments, but astonishingly on 5.4.05 his one cheque was of Rs.19000/- was dishonoured and on 11.4.05 a fine of Rs.1021/- was imposed which is totally against the RBI guideline or against any banking principle. For refrigerator and washing machine and for pre-approved loan for 24 monthly instalment for each the total amount comes to the figure of Rs.67224/- inclusive of interest and principal amount. The complainant has already paid Rs.158663/-, said it in other words, he has paid excess amount of Rs.91439/- to the SBUI Credit Card Deptt.

    On 28.5.07 he wrote a letter to the Manager, Credit Card Deptt. for his full and final settlement of credit card account for Rs.4000/- which was duly received by Kartik Chatterjee, an officer of recovery of the SBI Credit Card Deptt., but thereafter the complainant received a statement of Rs.75439.34 for further payment. Thereafter on 5.10.07 the complainant sent legal notice to the o.p. nos.1 to 3 asking them to refund the said amount of money within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the o.ps. received the notice on 11.10.07, but they have never replied. He also reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Bally P.S. and Supdt. of Police, Howrah and District Magistrate, Howrah. He also sent letter to o.p. nos.1 and 2 to close and deactivate his credit card account dt.4.10.07 and on 13.10.07 the Credit Card Deptt. intimated the complainant about the deactivation of the credit card account and intimated him the total outstanding dues of Rs.85880.12. But even after that they have neither given any reply nor refunded back Rs.91439/- to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service too and accordingly, he had filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

    Decision with reasons :

    It appears on perusal of the record that the case was admitted on 23.4.08 and 6.6.08 was fixed for S/R. It further appears on perusal of order no.5 dt.2.9.08 that the complainant filed an affidavit showing service of notice upon the o.ps. but the o.ps. did not take any step nor they filed w/v and so the case is heard ex parte vide order no.6 dt.20-.10.08.

    Admittedly, the complainant purchased a refrigerator and a washing machine on 21.1.05 and 9.12.03 respectively at a monthly instalment of Rs.585/- and Rs.394/- respectively for 24 months. He also received a pre-approved cash offer of Rs.35000/- for a monthly instalment of Rs.1867/- for 24 months and he has given the account in paragraph 7 of the petition of complaint. It is the further specific case of the complainant that he has already paid Rs.158663/- instead of Rs.67224/-. Said it in other words he paid excess amount of Rs.91439/- which he has demanded to be refunded by the o.ps. and he has sent letter to the o.ps., but they have not replied.

    Even in spite of receipt of notice the o.ps. have not come to contest this case and they have not given reply of the letter of the complainant demanding refund of excess payment of Rs.91439/-. Said it in other words this double silence of the o.p., ipsofacto, raises a presumption that they have admitted the claim of the petitioner.

    We have perused the a/d card showing receipt of letter of the complainant. We have also perused the complaint of the petitioner addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Bally P.S. with the copy to Supdt. of Police, Howrah and District Magistrate, Howrah stating therein his specific allegation as made out in his petition of complaint. We have also perused the cash offer to the petitioner by the o.ps. for pre-approved amount of Rs.35000/- and monthly instalment of Rs.1867/- for 24 months, annex-6. We have also perused annex-7 regarding settlement of SBI Credit Card A/C no.4317575204315833 wherein the complainant has informed the Manager, SBI Credit Card intimating him that due to his personal problems he is not in a position to continue his credit card account and he would like to make settlement of Rs.4000/- as one time settlement. From his letter dt.4.10.07 annex-8 wherein he has informed that he did not like to hold the credit card any longer and he wanted to surrender the said credit card and he requested them to accept the same and it appears from annex-9 wherein the Manager, Customer Service has informed the complainant that “SBI Card A/C closer : we wish to inform you that your account has been deactivated : outstanding related please note that the total outstanding on your account is Rs.85880.12. We would request you to send in the payment for the same at the earliest”. But it is strange to note that the o.ps. have not given any statement of account for such outstanding amount of Rs.85880.12 although they have deactivated the SBI Credit Card A/C of the complainant. It also appears from the lawyer’s notice, annex-11, that on 28.5.07 the complainant wrote a letter to the SBI Credit Card Deptt. for full and final settlement of his credit card account for Rs.4000/- which was duly received by Kartik Chatterjee. But even in spite of that the SBI Credit Card Deptt. has sent a statement demanding Rs.75493.34 for further payment and they have not yet given any statement of account for such demand of money. We have already said that the complainant has already paid Rs.687224/- as monthly instalment for the purchase of refrigerator and washing machine and cash offer of Rs.35000/- for 24 instalment each inclusive principal and interest. We have already mentioned that in the complaint/FIR the complainant has stated in paragraph 4 vide annex-D that “Till now I have made payment of Rs.158663/- and last payment was made by me on 11.6.07 of Rs.3500/-. He has also informed it to the Supdt. of Police, Howrah and District Magistrate, Howrah. He has also requested the o.p. for full and final settlement of his SBI Credit Card on payment of Rs.4000/-. But the o.ps. have not given any reply of his letter. On the other hand, they have demanded further payment of outstanding due of Rs.85880.12 against which they could not have given any statement of account. The complainant has also submitted the Xerox copy of his pass book showing payment of money to the o.ps. on different dates. He has also filed his affidavit treating his petition of complaint as his evidence. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances and evidence both orally and documentarily there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant and accordingly, he is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.

    Hence,

    Ordered,

    That the petition of complaint is allowed ex parte against the o.ps. The o.ps. are directed to refund Rs.91,439/- (Rupees ninety one thousand four hundred thirty nine) only to the complainant positively within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only. So, the o.ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay grand total of Rs.1,04,439/- (Rupees one lakh four thousand four hundred thirty nine) only positively within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default of such payment, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.
    Supply copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/201

    Sri Subhendu Dhar
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    SBI Cards & Payment Services (P) Ltd.
    ...........Respondent(s)
    BEFORE:
    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 201 / 2008

    1) Sri Subhendu Dhar,

    B-20, C.I.T Building,

    Rajendra Mallick Street,

    Kolkata-700007.
    Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) SBI Cards & Payment Services (P) Ltd.,

    234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road,

    Kolkata-700020.
    Opposite Party

    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.

    Order No. 1 1 Dated 0 5 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 .

    The instant case arises out of the petition of complaint u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against SBI Cards and Payment Services (P) Ltd., Fortuna Building, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, P.O. Lala Lajpat Sarani, Kolkata-20 with head office at Tower-C, 12th floor, Block-2, Building-3, Infinity Tower, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122022, Hariyana with a prayer (a) for a declaration that the claim of the o.p. is false and fictitious and the complainant need not to pay any further to the o.p. (b) for cancellation of credit cards permanently, (c) injunction against the o.p. from landing monthly statements and letters and from making phone calls to harass the complainant and the member of his family without just cause, (d) damages and/or compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- for harassing the complainant and his family members without any just cause and (e) for litigation cost and such other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

    Specific case of the complainant is that the statement as on 11.5.07 shows that Sri Saikat Dhar, his son, additional credit card holder (card no.4006 6610 1537 7489) took a cash advance of Rs.2500/- on 23.3.07, though the same was not taken by his son on 23.3.07 (annex-4).

    The complainant contends that had his son taken this said amount of Rs.2500/- (even without his knowledge) then it was his son who had to pay it back through the primary card holder (complainant). This apart, both the unsigned cards, viz. primary card and additional card were lying with the complainant at his residence on 23.3.07 and were never used (annex-10 e) since the expiry of old card. Thus, the question of withdrawing money from the ATM of the o.p. on 23.3.07 does not arise at all (annex-10 a).

    This fact of non drawal of money amounting to Rs.2500/- was brought to the notice of o.p. by telephone but without any effect. Then a letter was sent to the o.p. through e-mail and ultimately the reply of o.p. came on 30.5.07 to the effect that they have taken a note of his request regarding the disputed transactions on his card account and they have referred the contents of his communication to the concerned department for necessary action from their end. They would be intimating him (complainant) shortly on the status of the same (annex-5). But such an intimation is yet to reach the complainant.

    The complainant made a payment of Rs.25600/- only to the o.p. in full and final payment of their dues (with errors and omissions excepted) on 19.6.07 by UBI cheque no.208556 leaving aside the disputed amount of Rs.2500/- shown as debit in the additional credit card account of Saikat Dhar and the above remitted amount was acknowledged by the o.p. on 21.6.07 (annex-10 c & 10 d).

    The complainant in his letter dt/30.5.07 stated that the alleged cash withdrawal of Rs.2500/- on 23.3.07 was arbitrary and untenable, since the credit card and additional card were expired in October 2006 and thereafter the new cards issued by the bank was unsigned and not used by the complainant or his son. And the complainant requested the o.p. to reverse the inappropriate debit account (annex-10a).

    The complainant in his letter dt.20.6.07 addressed to Sri Ajay Misra with kind attention to Sri Ajay Bharti, Asst. Vice President, Customer Services, requested the o.p. to discontinue the said credit cards with immediate effect and intimate the deactivation of the credit cards under intimation to him (annex-10e).

    But there was no response from the o.p. Rather they used to send monthly statement with increasing amount every time without any basis (annex-6).

    Last but not the least, the o.p. was making frequent telephone calls at the complainant’s residence as well as at his son’s residence uttering frightful and obnoxious languages which has made the lives of the complainant and his son miserable.

    Hence this case.

    Decision with reasons :

    Before arriving at any decision, let us see whether Sri Saikat Dhar, additional credit card holder (card no.4006 6610 1537 7489) had taken the cash of rs.2500/-actually against his additional card on 23.3.07 (annex-4).

    From the statements of account from April 2007 and onwards except May 2007 it is evident that in those statements of account issued by the o.p. there is no mentioning of cash advance debit of Rs.2500/- (annex- statements of account from April 2007 and onwards except May 2007 supplied by the complainant –letter & annexure-4).

    It is interesting to note that according to o.p’s version, the cash advance was taken by the additional card holder Saikat Dhar on 23.3.07, but the same was not reflected in the statement of account dt.11.4.07 (annex-3) which should have been shown there. Only the same was shown abruptly in the statement of account dt.11.5.07 without citing any reason for such irregularity from the point of maintenance of accounts (annex-4).

    Without mentioning in their statements of account except for May 2007, the o.p. sent letters and charge slip to the complainant one after another asking for payment of the alleged said cash advance (annex-4 to 7, 8 & 10b).

    From the record it is evident that the o.p. failed to submit w/v in spite of their assurance to do so and consequently order for ex parte hearing was issued as per order no.6 dt.26.11.08 and accordingly complainant filed BNA on 17.3.09 and prayed for for time to file some other documents. The matter was hard at length ex parte on 22.4.09.

    From the documents on record, it is evident that the o.p. did not adduce any evidence in support of their contention that Sri Saikat Dhar, the additional card holder took cash advance amounting to Rs.2500/- on 23.3.07.

    It is evident from the petition of complaint, affidavit of evidence and documents on record that the credit card in question expired in October 2006 and thereafter, the new cards issued by the o.p. to the complainant and additional card holder were not signed and used ever, which was found true from the statements of account (annex-2,3,6 & statements of accounts submitted later by the complainant). Rather it is evident from the documents on record that the complainant asked for deactivation of cards (annex-10c & 10d) and reversing the amount of fictitious amount of cash advance.

    Thus, having due regard to the above fact, it is evident that the cash advance was not at all taken by Sri Saikat Dhar, the additional card holder and the asking for payment of alleged cash advance by the o.p. is not only arbitrary but unfair trade practices.

    The absence of o.p. and their failure to file w/v in spite of assurance that they would submit w/v indicates that they have nothing in their gloves to controvert the allegations of the complainant.

    Hence, ordered,

    that the o.p. is directed to reverse the alleged cash advance of Rs.2500/- and to intimate the complainant regarding full and final settlement of the outstanding dues in view of his payment of Rs.25,650/- which was received by o.p. on 21.6.07. O.p. is directed to cancel the credit cards for good with immediate effect. O.p. is directed to stop the sending of monthly statement and letters and from making threatening calls to the complainant and his family members without any reason. Besides the complainant is awarded a compensation amounting of rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to be paid by the o.p. within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the o.p. will have to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rs.25,000 + Rs.10,000) till its payment in full.

    Fees paid are correct.

    Accordingly, the case is disposed of from this Forum.

    Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    CONSUMER CASE NO. : 37/S/2009 DATED : 27.11.2009.

    BEFORE PRESIDENT : SMT. ANITA DEBNATH,

    President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri

    Ex-Member of W.B. Higher Judicial Services and

    Addl. Dist. & Session Judge.

    MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARJEE

    &

    SRI ASIT RANJAN DAS

    COMPLAINANT : SGT HARIOM TIWARI,

    7AFLU C/O 20 Wing AF,

    Air Force Station,

    Bagdogra, W.B.,

    PIN – 734 421.
    O.Ps. 1) : MANAGER,

    State Bank of India,

    IAF Camp, Bagdogra (W.B.),

    PIN – 734 421.

    2) : MANAGER,

    Punjab National Bank,

    Baraut, Dist. – Baghpat (U.P.),

    PIN – 250 611.


    FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Sanjit Kr. Gupta, Advocate.



    FOR THE OPs : Sri Ashok Kumar Ghosh, Advocate.
    J U D G E M E N T

    This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for realization of the amount to the tune of Rs.14,000/- and compensation for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

    The case in brief is that the complainant is serving in Indian Air Force and presently posted at Air Force Station, Bagdogra within the District – Darjeeling, West Bengal and a permanent resident of Baraut, Dist.- Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.

    While he was on leave in the month of February’09he had been to his residence at Baraut and he used ATM of Punjab National Bank, Baraut on 19.02.09 for withdrawal of



    Contd……P/2

    -:2:-



    Rs.14,000/-. But in spite of using the said ATM Card he did not get any money from the said ATM machine and got transaction slip in which it was shown as withdrawal of Rs.14,000/-. It has then and there made a complaint to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Baraut as money was not received by using the ATM machine by way of written complaint. It has been instructed for receiving the money after reconcile from Bombay within 42 days. Subsequently, on 28.02.09 he made a complaint through FAX to SBI, Bagdogra and ATM Office, PNB, Delhi at FAX No.011 – 23710149. Again and again such complaint was made on 05.05.09 at FAX No. 011 – 2371036 to Sr. Manager, ATM, Delhi.

    The complainant has an Account being No.30424224336 and also holding a ATM Card of SBI, Bagdogra. On 28.02.09 he had been to PNB, Baraut and made enquiry about the fate of his application. But no response was received there from. He repeatedly requested SBI, Bagdogra for persuasion of the application as filed by him. On 11.05.09 a letter was served from SBI, Manager, IAF Camp, Bagdogra reporting that the transaction in question was successful on 19.02.09. But in fact the complainant did not receive any money through the said ATM Machine. Hence, this case supported by affidavit.

    State Bank of India/The OP No.1 contested the case by putting Written Version supported by affidavit denying each and every allegation as made therein with a specific defence that the case is not maintainable. This Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the case as the cause of action arose at Baraut, Dist.- Baghpat.

    It has been further alleged that the transaction slip has been issued in favour of the complainant showing that transaction has already been completed. Even then complainant made such allegation has no basis.

    It has been further alleged that the complainant used “punched” the Savings Bank ATM card with the Punjab national Bank ATM machine at Baraut and the report submitted by the PNB with regard to the compliant lodged by the complainant that operation by using the said ATM card of the SBI ATM card was successful on 19.02.09. As a result of which this OP has no responsible in this regard. Since the money has already been withdrawn by punching the ATM card at PNB ATM Machine, Baraut, the claim as made by the complainant is not tenable and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

    Upon consideration of the pleadings of the respective parties the following points are to be framed for determination of the controversy as involved in the instant case :-

    1) Is the case maintainable ?

    2) Has the Forum any jurisdiction to try the instant case ?



    Contd……P/3

    -:3:-
    3) Is there any deficiency of service or Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the OPs ?

    4) Is the complainant entitled to get decree as prayed for ?

    5) To what other relief/reliefs as sought for ?



    Point No.2.



    On scrutiny of the record it reveals that the OP No.1 took a defence of lack of jurisdiction not only in Written Version but also filed a separate application dated 01.09.09.

    It further reveals that the said point of jurisdiction has already been disposed of on contest and the said plea was discarded being not entertainable and held that this Forum has jurisdiction to try the instant case under Order No.11 dated 22.09.09. So, no further order calls for in view of such order dated 22.09.09 and the point is thus disposed of.

    Point No.1.



    The OP took a defence that the remedy as sought for is lying with the Civil Court and this Forum can not try the instant case as voluminous evidence is necessary. Thereby the case is not maintainable.

    This is a case for enjoyment of ATM facility by punching the card at PNB machine, Baraut, Uttar Pradesh. It is evident that the complainant possessed a ATM card of SBI, Bagdogra having Account being No.30424224336.

    Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines for hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised. When such facility was granted on consideration and when it has been availed of on the basis of such system as allowed by the banking authority the complainant may be considered as Consumer as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act of 1986.

    When one’s assertion of non-withdrawal of the money by punching the ATM machine of PNB, Baraut/the OP No.2 and denied by the others the said nature of dispute comes within the purview of Consumer Dispute as provided under Section 2(1)(e) of the said Act of 1986.

    Section 13 of the said Act, 1986 show beyond out that the statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of fact involving taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing of voluminous documentary evidence and a detailed security and assessment of such evidence. The Forum constitute under the Act are vested with the power to examine witness on oath and to order discovery and



    Contd……P/4

    -:4:-

    production of document. But such power is to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as defective quality of any goods purchased or shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the Respondent has contracted to perform for consideration.

    Herein the instant case question of shortcoming of performance and quality of service has been questioned. Thereby this Forum does not feel so complicated in nature for which it requires to be sent to the Civil Court for its decision.

    So, the objection as raised justifies to return the case on such defence as stated hereinbefore.

    Therefore, the case is quite maintainable in this regard.

    Under these facts and circumstances, when deficiency of service as alleged exists, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the instant case and thereby the case is quite maintainable.

    Thus, the point is decided in favour of the complainant and as such it is disposed of.

    Point No.3 – 5.



    The sole contention of the complainant that during his leave in the month of Febraury’09 he used ATM Machine of Punjab National Bank on 19.02.09 for a sum of Rs.14,000/-. But he did not receive any money there from on the basis of the said transaction and the matter was brought to the notice of the OP No.2 by a written complaint followed by several complaint made not only before the OP No.2 but also to the OP No.1 and it has been reported that the transaction was completed by successful operation.

    The complainant in support of his case has filed Xerox copy of Savings Bank Pass Book where from it reveals that the complainant has a Savings Bank Account No.30424224336 at Bagdogra State Bank of India. The copy of the letter dated 19.02.09 it reveals that when the complainant did not receive the said money by way of punching the ATM card at Baraut PNB ATM machine he lodged a complaint on the self same date to the manager, Punjab National Bank, Baraut who received the said complaint by putting their official seal and signature. It further reveals that on the next day another complaint was lodged to the said Punjab National Bank ATM, Baraut and the same was received by the OP No.2. The complainant also lodged complaint on 20.02.09 to SBI, Bagdogra, West Bengal and the same was also received by the said Branch/the OP No.1. It further reveals by series of application the complainant made his grievances about

    Contd……P/5

    -:5:-

    non-withdrawal of the money from the ATM machine, Baraut, PNB. It has been shown as withdrawal of Rs.14,000/- despite not receiving the said money from the said ATM machine, PNB, Baraut.

    The complainant led evidence by way of affidavit-in-chief and he was cross-examined by the OP No.1, State Bank of India by putting specific questionnaire and the same was replied by the complainant by way of affidavit in reply. In this regard the complainant specifically stated that he operated the ATM machine on 19.02.09 for withdrawal of Rs.14,000/- but no money was received there from and the balance was confirmed as Rs.5,104/-. The complainant further led evidence in reply that he also withdrew a sum of Rs.3,000/- from ICICI Bank ATM, Baraut when the previous transaction became failed with PNB ATM, Baraut. He categorically stated against Question No.15 & 16 that it is not within his knowledge any fault in the machine in question and when in need of money he operated the ATM card from PNB ATM machine, Baraut and when he did not receive the said amount he again operated the ATM card through ICICI Bank ATM, Baraut and withdrew a cash amount of Rs.3,000/- and despite repeated request he did not get any response from the PNB, Baraut. Rather the OP No.1 intimated that the said operation was successfully completed.

    The complainant also filed the document dated 11.05.09 issued by the State Bank of India, AIF Camp intimated the complainant that against the complainant as raised by him they have been advised that the captioned ATM transaction at PNB ATM done by him on 19.02.09 was successful as advised by the Operation, Payment and Settlement Division, ATM Sharing Section, New Delhi – 110 001.

    From the Statement of Account relating to the Saving Bank Account No.30424224336 dated 20.02.09 that several transactions have been shown therein and on 19.02.09 a sum of Rs.14,000/- was shown as withdrawal.

    But save and except the said letter no further document has been furnished either by the OP No.1 or by the OP No.2 to show that despite having possession of Transaction Register relating to the date of occurrence dated 19.02.09 neither the OP No.1 nor the OP No.2 submitted any document to show that on the said date of occurrence i.e. 19.02.09 how much money was kept in the ATM machine of PNB, Baraut for clearance and how much money remains unused through the said ATM machine of Baraut PNB. Bank is the public utility service and when ATM machine is running under the control of the concerned Bank originated from main office at Mumbai or Delhi obviously they have to maintain separate Register in this regard and if the said register dated 19.02.09 maintained and controlled by the OP No.2/PNB Baraut be placed for appreciation the

    Contd……P/6

    -:6:-
    truth would come out whether actually the amount in question was withdrawn by the complainant after punching his ATM card and if not functioned properly due to the fault of the machinery or any kind of reason thereof there must be report to maintain by the PNB ATM machine, Baraut and the Delhi Division or Mumbai Division.

    Further the report dated 11.05.09 issued by Branch Manager, IAF Camp, Bagdogra does not reflect about the date of transaction as maintained by the concerned Bank, Baraut. Only there is mention of report from ATM Sharing Section, New Delhi. This document is not sufficient to hold that the fate of the transaction as made on the date of the occurrence i.e. dated 19.02.09 was successful in operation. Until and unless any official documents be placed for consideration this Forum is of the view and reached to its conclusion that the money in question was not actually received by the complainant by way of punching ATM card machine PNB, Baraut.

    Be it mentioned here that OP No.2 did not come forward to contest the casa denying the allegation as made by the complainant. Further it is noticed that on the self same date complaint was lodged before the concerned office but they did not feel to make any reply against the complaint as raised by the complainant on the date of occurrence. Even on receiving several representations through the complainant the concerned Bank, PNB, Baraut did not bother to make any enquiry and to report about the fate of the transaction alleged to have been made by the complainant.

    Under the law it is a settled principle of law when contention of the case under the complaint has not been denied by any party challenging the allegation as made therein the contention as made under the complaint remains unshaken and/or unchallenged on its part.

    When the OP No.2 did not come forward to contest the case denying the case of the complainant despite receiving notice is of the view the case of the complainant as alleged against the OP No.2/PNB, Baraut remains unchallenged and when the case of the complainant has been furnished supported by affidavit together with leading evidence on affidavit why the case of the complainant would be disbelieved when there is no challenge on the part of the OP No.2. Further more the OP No.1 is the Bank where from ATM card was issued in favour of the complainant and although they have denied the case of the complainant not only by of Written Version but also by cross examination of the complainant we are of the view that the said OP No.1 has not come forward to establish his defence by call for the original document from the reporting centre, Delhi or P.N.B., Baraut that the alleged punching the ATM Machine was successful in operation. Mere taking such defence and submitting that report the SBI can not avoid/discharge

    Contd……P/7

    -:7:-

    their liability to substantiate such defence as because it is the chain system and if all these documents are produced truth would come out what was the incident as alleged and what steps were taken by the PNB, Baraut and the Delhi Centre and/or Mumbai Division where from system of the ATM Machine have been controlled and it is a sophisticated technique SBI, Bagdogra, the issuer of the ATM Card knows very well about such procedure dealing with the card even then they have not come forward to establish its defence by cogent document.

    Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that when the complainant led evidence supported by affidavit coupled with documents to show that on the date of occurrence he punched the ATM machine, Baraut (PNB) and when it has been shown as withdrawal until and unless relevant document relating to the withdrawal or transaction on the date of occurrence and other relevant document be produced we are not in agreement with the method as adopted under the report dated 11.05.09 communicated through OP No.1 is sufficient to hold that the alleged operation was successful. More so, the complainant is a Government Service Holder and intimated the matter on the self same date just after the incident even then when the OP No.2 did not deny the case of the complainant specifically there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant.

    Since it has not been denied or performed the duty properly by the OP No.2 even the OP No.1 did not produce the relevant document it amounts to short coming of the performance to their quality of service as rendered and both the OPs are to be considered and held as negligent to perform their respective part.

    Now the question is whether such shortcoming in the performance with regard to their quality of service as rendered by the OP No.1 or OP No.2 amounts to deficiency of service as provided under the law.

    Deficiency means fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality of service which means service of any description which is available on potential users and such service has not been performed up to its mark and denied the same and when there is allegation of shortcoming of perfection of quality of service we are of the view that in the light of our reasoning as made herein before both the OPs are found negligent and deficiency of service on their respective part.

    Therefore, the case of the complainant stands.

    Since the complainant did not receive any money in his need and when despite raising grievance against the OP No.2 and OP No.1 by lodging a written complaint separately and did not intimate the same on reasonable period it causes mental pain,
    Contd……P/8

    -:8:-
    agony and sufferings. Therefore, case of the complainant with regard to compensation stands and the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- only.

    Thus the issues are decided in the favour of the complainant.

    In the result, the case succeeds in part.

    Hence, it is,

    O R D E R E D

    that the Consumer Case No.37/S/2009 is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and Ex-parte against the OP No.2 with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

    The complainant is entitled to get a decree for Rs.14,000/- from the OPs who are jointly and severally liable.

    The complainant is further entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/-.

    The OPs who are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.14,000/- within 45 days from the date hereof failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the instant case dated 12.05.09 till the date of realization of the entire sum.

    The OPs who are jointly and severally liable are further directed to pay the compensation amount as awarded herein before within the stipulated period.

    Let Xerox copies of this Judgement and Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
    -Member- -Member- -President-

    Consumer Case No.37/S/2009

    Order No.18

    Dt.27.11.09. This day is fixed for delivery of Judgement.

    The OP No.1 files hazira through his Lid. Advocate/Agent and also files a petition praying for time for filing Written Argument vacating the earlier order dated 18.11.09 on the ground as stated therein. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant and the OPs are found present.

    Heard both sides.

    Perused the petition.

    On scrutiny of the record it reveals that the OP No.1 was given ample opportunity to argue the case on behalf of the OP No.1 even opportunity was given to glance the Written Argument filed on behalf of the complainant for his ready reference even then such opportunity was not availed of.

    Now the OP No.1 has again come before the Forum filing a petition on the self same ground with a prayer for giving opportunity to file Written Argument on the ground as stated therein. Copy served. Objection noted.

    Considering the submissions of both sides for the interest of Justice the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP may argue on behalf of the OP No.1 when the Judgement has not yet been passed. But the Ld. Advocate candidly submitted that he is not in a position to argue the case this day even he has not ready with the Written Argument. Unless such time be granted he is unable to argue the case this day.

    Considering the submissions as made by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP No.1 this Forum is of the view that sole intention of the OP No.1 is to take time and delay the proceedings somehow and despite giving ample opportunity he has not come forward to argue the case.

    Under these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any time further.

    Thus, the petition is considered and rejected.

    Order dated 18.11.2009 stands in force.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Complaint Case No.:389 of 2009

    Date of Inst: 20.03.2009

    Date of Decision:11.11.2009

    Vijay Chopra s/o Sh.Prannath Chopra House No.62, Block E-1, Sector 14, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

    ---Complainant

    V E R S U S
    1. S.B.I.Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi through its Chief Executive Officer.
    2. State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh (Bank Square) through its General Manager.
    ---Opposite Parties

    QUORUM

    SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT

    SMT.URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER

    SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER



    PRESENT: Sh.G.S.Sandhu, Adv. for complainant

    Sh.Ajay Singh Parma, Adv. for OPs.

    ---

    PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

    Sh.Vijay Chopra has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :-

    i) Issue no due certificate.

    ii) Refund Rs.8450/- as agreed vide tracer No.Punjab 68200812007750.

    iii) Pay a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental agony etc.

    iv) Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

    v) Pay a sum of Rs.50000/- for deficiency in service.

    2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that Credit Card bearing No.0004006676017686620 was issued to him by State Bank of India. According to the complainant, some amount was outstanding against the said credit card account. On 18.08.2008, OP vide letter (Annexure C-1/A) offered a one time full and final offer to settle the outstanding dues against the said credit card account on payment of Rs.85000/- in two installments as per details given in the letter. According to the complainant, he accepted the said offer and paid a sum of Rs.85000/- vide receipts (Annexure C-1 and C-2). However, OP did not adhere to the offer made by it and did not settle the credit card account despite payment of Rs.85000/-. The complainant received demand notice dated 09.09.08 (Annexure C-4) asking him to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,986/- against the credit card account. According to the complainant, the said demand amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

    3. In the reply filed by OPs, it has been pleaded that OPs have zeroized the account of the complainant in the month of January 2009 and statement of the same has already been sent to him. In these circumstances, the complainant suffered no inconvenience and loss of his reputation. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, Annexures, affidavits etc.

    5. Annexure C-1/A is the letter dated 18.08.2008 issued by the OPs offering to settle the dispute regarding the outstanding amount against the credit card account of the complainant on payment of Rs.85000/-. Annexures C-1 and C-2 are the receipts regarding the payment of the aforesaid amount. There is no allegation that the said amount was not paid as per the terms and conditions contained in the letter Annexure C-1/A. Thus, the complainant paid the entire amount mentioned by OPs in letter (Annexure C-1/A). Despite it, OPs issued a demand notice (Annexure C-4) asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,986/-. From the perusal of Annexure R-5 placed on record by OPs, it is apparent that the account was zeroized under the one time settlement in the month of January, 2009 whereas the entire amount was paid on 22.08.2008 and in between the demand notice dated 09.09.2008 (Annexure C-4) was issued by OPs which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. From the written statement filed by OPs as well as from the statement of accounts (Annexure R-5), it is apparent that the account has been zeroized.

    6. In view of the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7000/- for deficiency in service mentioned above as well as mental agony and physical harassment. Besides this OP shall pay Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation.

    7. Consequently, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation.

    8. This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of order till its realization besides costs of litigation.

    9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Consumer Complaint No: 216/2008

    Date of presentation: 21.07.2008

    Date of decision: 25.11.2009

    Rajinder Singh Sublaik S/O Shri Dhumi Ram,

    Sublaik House, Khalini, Shimla-171002.
    … Complainant.

    Versus
    1. Sanjay Verma

    Payment Assistant Unit,

    SBI Card and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.

    P.O. Bag No.28, GPO, New Delhi.

    2. S B I Cards Private Limited

    P.O. Bag No.28, GPO, New Delhi-110001.

    …Opposite Parties

    For the complainant: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.

    O R D E R:

    Per, Dr. Karuna Machhan, Member:- The complainant, Shri Rajinder Singh Sublaik, has filed this complaint, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He alleged that, he is holder of credit card No.4317 5750 1719 3773, having been issued in his favour by the OP No.2. It is averred that the OP No.2, vide letter dated 16.03.2004, offered cash withdrawal facility through the SBI card upto a period of 75 days at zero percent interest rate and thereafter, when, he made inquiry regarding the said facility, the OP No.1, made it clear that the facility of cash withdrawal at zero percent rate was valid from 15.02.2004 to 30.04.2004. Accordingly, on, 31.03.2004, the complainant availed the facility within the scheduled time as disclosed in the letter dated 16.03.2004 and withdrew Rs.10,000/- by using SBI credit card and remitted the said sum to the OP No.2, through cheque No.0257711 dated 10.06.2004. But, the OPs sent a letter to the complainant vide which he was asked to make the payment of Rs.11,459.81, hence, the matter was brought to the notice of the OPs, but nothing was done by them. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OPs, the complainant avers that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OPs, by way of registered AD, but the OPs, despite valid service through RAD, neither put in appearance before this Forum, nor filed any reply to the complaint, hence, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte, vide zimni order dated 02.12.2008.

    3. Thereafter, the complainant led evidence in the shape of affidavit/document, in support of his claim.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has placed on record the copy of the acknowledgement vide which the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the OPs. In addition to this, the complainant has also filed his own affidavit, corroborating the facts as detailed in the complaint. Since, the allegations, as made in the complaint by the complainant, hence, have remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on record by non-adduction of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the OPs, as such, the only inference which sprouts, from, the above, is, that the allegations as asserted in the complaint, are, true and correct. Hence, it is held that the demand of the OPs to the extent of Rs.11,459.81 shown against SBI card No.4317575017193773 and thereafter in the monthly statement dated 19.07.2004 for Rs.2126.45, is, illegal and without any substance, as the complainant has availed the cash withdrawn facility within the stipulated period, commencing from 15.02.2004 to 30.04.2004 and thereafter make the payment of the said sum, to the OPs. Thus, the demand of the aforesaid sums, by the OPs, from the complainant, not only amounts to deficiency in service, but, is, also, an, unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

    6. As a sequel of the above, we allow this complaint and set aside and quash the demand of Rs.11,459.81 and Rs.2126.45, respectively as shown in monthly statement dated 19.07.2004, against SBI card No.4317575017193773. Since, the OPs, have unnecessarily dragged the complainant to uncalled for litigation and subjected to harassment and humiliation, as such, the OPs, are, also saddled with damages of Rs.2500/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-, to be paid to the complainant, by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OPs through UPC, for compliance. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Consumer Complaint No: 23/2008

    Date of presentation: 28.03.2008

    Date of decision: 11/11/2009.

    Sh. Shankar S/o Sh. Bihari Lal,

    C/o Hans Finance, Opposite Holi Heart Public School, Shimla Road, Nahan, District Sirmour.

    … Complainant.
    Versus

    State Bank Of India, Near Chowgan, Nahan,

    District Sirmour, H.P.

    Through its Branch Manager. …Opposite Party.

    For the complainant: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party: Mr. M.K. Jain, Advocate.

    O R D E R:
    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is holder of account No.30224609742, with the OP-Bank. It is averred that on, 31.08.2007, he deposited a cheque bearing No.388673, with the OP-Bank, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- issued in his favour by one Shri Manjinder Singh, for crediting the value of the same in his account. It is further alleged that the OP-Bank filed to deposit its value, hence, has committed deficiency in service. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, in not crediting its value in his account, the complainant avers that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, contended that the cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-when sent for collection was received back with the report that the drawer was not having sufficient funds in his saving bank account, hence, its value could not be credited in the account of the complainant. As such, it is contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

    3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits/documents, in support of their respective rival contentions.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, in not crediting in his account, the, sum comprised in cheque bearing No.388673 issued, in, his favour by one Shri Manjinder Singh. Therefore, it is contended that the above lapse on the part of the OP-Bank constitutes, a, deficiency in service.

    6. The OP-Bank, in its reply, has, contended that the amount comprised, in, the above cheque could not be credited in the account of the complainant maintained with the OP-Bank, inasmuch, as, the cheque, for, deficient funds in account of the drawer, could, not be, encashed. The above contention, has remained unrebutted, hence, attains conclusiveness. However, the grievance of the complainant that the cheque did not come to be returned to the complainant, has not been firmly rebutted by the OP-Bank. Even if, for the aforesaid reasons, their, was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank in not crediting the amount comprised in the cheque, in, the account of the complainant maintained by it, nonetheless, the cheque ought to have been returned to the complainant, so as to enable him to avail of remedies, in, accordance with law against the drawer. For lapse on the part of the OP-Bank, in, not returning the cheque to the complainant, he has been precluded to do so. Obviously, he has been put to loss and requires to be compensated by the OP-Bank. Therefore, in the interest of justice and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper in the fitness of things, if the complainant, is, held entitled to a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation from the OP-Bank, besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-, which shall be paid to the complainant by the OP-Bank, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    Complaint No.217 of 2009

    Instituted On: 27.10.2009

    Decided On: 04.11.2009

    Surinder Pal Singh Ex.Senior Assistant, State Bank of India, Talwandi Mallian, Moga (Punjab) son of Sh.Raj Singh, resident of house no. B-IX-442, Mohalla Santokh Pura, Jalandhar City.

    Complainant
    Versus
    1. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021.

    2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

    3. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Punjab, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

    4. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Punjab Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

    5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Talwandi Mallian, Distt. Moga (Punjab)

    Opposite Parties

    Complaint under section 12 of The

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.

    Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

    Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.
    Present: Sh.DPS Khosa, Adv.counsel for the complainant.

    (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)

    Sh.Surinder Pal Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021 and others (herein-after referred to as ‘State Bank’)-opposite parties directing them to give Rs.37426/- i.e. the balance of EPF/GPF alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and agony.

    2. Briefly stated, Sh.Surinder Pal Singh complainant was working as Senior Assistant with State Bank of India, Talwandi Mallian, Distt. Moga OP5-State Bank and was compulsory retired from service on 27.01.2007 by the OP4-State Bank. That the complainant has filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same is likely to be accepted. That the OPs-State Bank has paid him leave encashment amounting to Rs.115035/- and EPF/GPF on 16.11.2007, but no interest on the delayed payment on the aforesaid amounts has been paid to him. That the complainant was to receive the payment of EPF/GPF amounting to Rs.696386/- as per letter dated 10.9.2007 based on the statement for the year ending 31.3.2007, but he was sanctioned the payment of Rs.658960/- vide letter dated 1.11.2007 and thus, he is entitled to the balance amount of Rs.37426/-. Hence the present complaint.

    3. We have heard Sh.DPS Khosa ld.counsel for the complainant and very carefully gone through the documents placed on the file.

    4. On the point of jurisdiction, ld.counsel for the complainant has produced before us the ruling 2009(1) CLT page 22 titled as Punjab National Bank Vs. Sunil Kumar Poddar & Anr. showing that this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

    5. The complainant has failed to show/ prove the allegations made in the complaint that the OPs-State Bank has committed any deficiency in service. The sanction letter dated 1.11.2007 shows that the amount to be debited to LHO was Rs.696386/-, the amount payable to member was Rs.658960/- and the amount to be remitted back to LHO (excess interest reversable) was Rs.37426/-. Thus, the aforesaid sanction letter shows that the OPs-State Bank had not deducted Rs.37426/- out of the total amount of EPF/GPF, but it was excess interest already paid to him. Ld.counsel for the complainant has failed to prove that the deduction of aforesaid amount of Rs.37426/- was illegal and wrong or that the OPs-State Bank was not entitled to deduct the same. Rather the sanction letter dated 1.11.2007 is self explanatory. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-State Bank while reversing Rs.37426/- as excess interest paid to him. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant can not be admitted and hence the same stands dismissed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited January 2010
    consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/173

    Sh.Monu Grover
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    State Bank of India
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:

    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC.No.173 of 29.07.2009 Decided on: 10.11.2009 Monu Grover Son of Shri Surinder Grover, resident of House No. 3897, Aneeta Street, Mehna Mohalla, Bathinda. …….Complainant. Versus State Bank of India, Branch Kikkar Bazar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. …….Opposite party. Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for the complainant. For the opposite party : Sh. Anil Gupta, counsel for the opposite party. QUORUM Sh. George, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. ORDER GEORGER, PRESIDENT:- 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite party that he opened his account bearing No. 30806317782 on dated 27.06.2009, and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- as required by opposite party. He again deposited Rs. 1,500/- on dated 29.06.2009, thus he had balanced of Rs. 2,000/-. He visited the bank on dated 09.07.2009 to receive his ATM Secret code, and when he got the entries in his account pass book, he came to know that the opposite party deducted Rs. 200/- on dated 30.06.2009 from his account. On his asking, the reason for deduction, opposite party could not give any satisfactory reply. He made requests for credit to Rs. 200/- in his account, but opposite party failed to give any positive response to the complainant. Therefore, he is entitled to seek directions from Hon’ble Forum to the opposite party to refund Rs. 200/- illegally deducted, and pay Rs. 10,000/- as a compensation for causing mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience on account of illegally deduction Rs. 200/- from his account by the opposite party along with Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses. 2. Opposite party contested the allegations raising objections that complainant has no locus standi or cause of action. Complaint is not maintainable. The Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service, and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint is false, frivolous, and has been filed with malafide intention. 3. On merit also while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite party pleaded that complainant visited the bank on dated 26.06.2009 for opening saving bank account, after cash hours. As such, the Saving Bank Account No. 30806317782 was opened on 26.06.2009 with Zero balance. Complainant deposited Rs. 500/- on 27.06.2009, and also got issued the ATM Card from the Bank on 27.06.2009. Complainant again deposited an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in his saving bank account on 29.06.2009, thus total balance as on 29.06.2009 was Rs. 2,000/-. As per the instructions of the Bank, the saving bank account holder, having ATM card facility have to maintain a minimum credit balance of Rs. 1,000/- during the whole quarter, and if the same is not maintained by the account holder on any day within the said quarter, then the computer system will automatically debit Rs. 200/- on account of charges for not maintaining minimum balance. In this case, the account was opened on 26.06.2009 with Zero balance, on 27.06.2009 there was a credit balance of Rs. 500/-, and as such, at the end of quarter i.e. on 30.06.2009, the computer system automatically debited Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, as minimum balance charges. Therefore, there is neither any negligence on the part of the opposite party nor any deficiency in service, and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Complainant in order to prove the allegations filed his own affidavit dated 28.07.2009 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of his bank pass book Ex.C-2. 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party filed affidavit of Sh. V.K. Pasricha, Manager PBD, dated 03.11.2009 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of deposit receipt Ex.R-2; copy of account opening form, containing four pages Ex.R-3; copy of account statement Ex.R-4 and photo copy of charging of bank Ex.R-5. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully. 7. The admitted facts are that complainant opened saving bank account with opposite party on dated 26.06.2009, and he deposited Rs. 500/- on 27.06.2009, and another amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited on 29.06.2009, thus total balance comes to Rs. 2,000/- in the saving bank account of the complainant on 30.06.2009. However, at the time of opening of the account because he deposited an amount of Rs. 500/-, therefore, an amount of Rs. 200/- were deducted from his account automatically by computer system, as the balance amount in his saving bank account was less than Rs. 1,000/- i.e. dated 27.06.2009 to 29.06.2009. There was only Rs. 500/-, and thereafter, 29.06.2009 to 30.06.2009 i.e. end of the quarter, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- were in saving bank account. Opposite party in order to justify the deduction of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, placed on the record Ex.R-5, wherein charges have been mentioned, which opposite party can charge from a consumer in case of different contingencies. However, opposite party has not brought any Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions issued by the ministry of Finance or appropriate bank authorities, to prove that the consumer is required to maintain at least balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- through out a quarter in his bank account, for which he has obtained a ATM card. In the absence of any such instructions etc., the deductions of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, appears to be a totally unwarranted and unjustified. Opposite party being a service provider is required to satisfy the consumer by showing him the Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions etc. under which the bank has authorizing to debit the said amount from the account of the consumer.The opposite party not only failed to satisfy the complainant being consumer, but also failed to being said Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions during the proceedings of the complaint before this Forum. 8. The facts of the case reveals that bank while issuing ATM Card, after receiving the amount of Rs. 500/- in the saving bank account of the complainant had a definite intention to debit an amount of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, otherwise there would have been no reason for the complainant to open the saving bank account with the facility of ATM card at the end of the quarter i.e. 27.06.2009, whereas he was supplied by the bank ATM secret code on 09.07.2009. Complainant could not have used ATM card without receiving ATM card secret code, and thus the complainant was put to unnecessary loss of Rs. 200/- from his saving bank account. The ATM card even if, issued to the complainant on 27.06.2009, which is otherwise impossible because ATM card never issued by any bank to the consumer on the same day, when he/she open a account with the bank, and even if, the ATM card supplied, the ATM card remained totally ineffective conditions due to non delivery of ATM secret code till 09.07.2009. In the present case, the complainant received the ATM secret code on 09.07.2009, and thus opposite party had no reason, cause or justification in debiting Rs. 200/- from the saving bank account of the complainant. Thus, the opposite party has definitely given wrong command to the automatically computerized system, which is not justified, and therefore, complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 200/- along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of debiting the amount from saving bank account of the complainant till the amount is finally paid to the complainant. The complainant has been put to unnecessary mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience; therefore, complainant is also entitled for reasonable amount of compensation from the opposite party, which we assess in the facts and circumstances of this case at Rs. 1,000/- along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 500/-. 9. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days form the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and filed be indexed and consigned. Pronounced (GEORGE) 10.11.2009 PRESIDENT (DR. PHULINDER PREET) MEMBER (AMARJEET PAUL) MEMBER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC.No.173 of 29.07.2009 Decided on: 10.11.2009 Monu Grover Son of Shri Surinder Grover, resident of House No. 3897, Aneeta Street, Mehna Mohalla, Bathinda. …….Complainant. Versus State Bank of India, Branch Kikkar Bazar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. …….Opposite party. Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for the complainant. For the opposite party : Sh. Anil Gupta, counsel for the opposite party. QUORUM Sh. George, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. ORDER GEORGER, PRESIDENT:- 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite party that he opened his account bearing No. 30806317782 on dated 27.06.2009, and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- as required by opposite party. He again deposited Rs. 1,500/- on dated 29.06.2009, thus he had balanced of Rs. 2,000/-. He visited the bank on dated 09.07.2009 to receive his ATM Secret code, and when he got the entries in his account pass book, he came to know that the opposite party deducted Rs. 200/- on dated 30.06.2009 from his account. On his asking, the reason for deduction, opposite party could not give any satisfactory reply. He made requests for credit to Rs. 200/- in his account, but opposite party failed to give any positive response to the complainant. Therefore, he is entitled to seek directions from Hon’ble Forum to the opposite party to refund Rs. 200/- illegally deducted, and pay Rs. 10,000/- as a compensation for causing mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience on account of illegally deduction Rs. 200/- from his account by the opposite party along with Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses. 2. Opposite party contested the allegations raising objections that complainant has no locus standi or cause of action. Complaint is not maintainable. The Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service, and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint is false, frivolous, and has been filed with malafide intention. 3. On merit also while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite party pleaded that complainant visited the bank on dated 26.06.2009 for opening saving bank account, after cash hours. As such, the Saving Bank Account No. 30806317782 was opened on 26.06.2009 with Zero balance. Complainant deposited Rs. 500/- on 27.06.2009, and also got issued the ATM Card from the Bank on 27.06.2009. Complainant again deposited an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in his saving bank account on 29.06.2009, thus total balance as on 29.06.2009 was Rs. 2,000/-. As per the instructions of the Bank, the saving bank account holder, having ATM card facility have to maintain a minimum credit balance of Rs. 1,000/- during the whole quarter, and if the same is not maintained by the account holder on any day within the said quarter, then the computer system will automatically debit Rs. 200/- on account of charges for not maintaining minimum balance. In this case, the account was opened on 26.06.2009 with Zero balance, on 27.06.2009 there was a credit balance of Rs. 500/-, and as such, at the end of quarter i.e. on 30.06.2009, the computer system automatically debited Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, as minimum balance charges. Therefore, there is neither any negligence on the part of the opposite party nor any deficiency in service, and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. Complainant in order to prove the allegations filed his own affidavit dated 28.07.2009 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of his bank pass book Ex.C-2. 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party filed affidavit of Sh. V.K. Pasricha, Manager PBD, dated 03.11.2009 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of deposit receipt Ex.R-2; copy of account opening form, containing four pages Ex.R-3; copy of account statement Ex.R-4 and photo copy of charging of bank Ex.R-5. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully. 7. The admitted facts are that complainant opened saving bank account with opposite party on dated 26.06.2009, and he deposited Rs. 500/- on 27.06.2009, and another amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited on 29.06.2009, thus total balance comes to Rs. 2,000/- in the saving bank account of the complainant on 30.06.2009. However, at the time of opening of the account because he deposited an amount of Rs. 500/-, therefore, an amount of Rs. 200/- were deducted from his account automatically by computer system, as the balance amount in his saving bank account was less than Rs. 1,000/- i.e. dated 27.06.2009 to 29.06.2009. There was only Rs. 500/-, and thereafter, 29.06.2009 to 30.06.2009 i.e. end of the quarter, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- were in saving bank account. Opposite party in order to justify the deduction of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, placed on the record Ex.R-5, wherein charges have been mentioned, which opposite party can charge from a consumer in case of different contingencies. However, opposite party has not brought any Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions issued by the ministry of Finance or appropriate bank authorities, to prove that the consumer is required to maintain at least balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- through out a quarter in his bank account, for which he has obtained a ATM card. In the absence of any such instructions etc., the deductions of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, appears to be a totally unwarranted and unjustified. Opposite party being a service provider is required to satisfy the consumer by showing him the Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions etc. under which the bank has authorizing to debit the said amount from the account of the consumer.The opposite party not only failed to satisfy the complainant being consumer, but also failed to being said Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions during the proceedings of the complaint before this Forum. 8. The facts of the case reveals that bank while issuing ATM Card, after receiving the amount of Rs. 500/- in the saving bank account of the complainant had a definite intention to debit an amount of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, otherwise there would have been no reason for the complainant to open the saving bank account with the facility of ATM card at the end of the quarter i.e. 27.06.2009, whereas he was supplied by the bank ATM secret code on 09.07.2009. Complainant could not have used ATM card without receiving ATM card secret code, and thus the complainant was put to unnecessary loss of Rs. 200/- from his saving bank account. The ATM card even if, issued to the complainant on 27.06.2009, which is otherwise impossible because ATM card never issued by any bank to the consumer on the same day, when he/she open a account with the bank, and even if, the ATM card supplied, the ATM card remained totally ineffective conditions due to non delivery of ATM secret code till 09.07.2009. In the present case, the complainant received the ATM secret code on 09.07.2009, and thus opposite party had no reason, cause or justification in debiting Rs. 200/- from the saving bank account of the complainant. Thus, the opposite party has definitely given wrong command to the automatically computerized system, which is not justified, and therefore, complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 200/- along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of debiting the amount from saving bank account of the complainant till the amount is finally paid to the complainant. The complainant has been put to unnecessary mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience; therefore, complainant is also entitled for reasonable amount of compensation from the opposite party, which we assess in the facts and circumstances of this case at Rs. 1,000/- along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 500/-. 9. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days form the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and filed be indexed and consigned. Pronounced (GEORGE) 10.11.2009 PRESIDENT (DR. PHULINDER PREET) MEMBER (AMARJEET PAUL) MEMBER
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Consumer Complaint No:584/2008
    Between:

    Bandi Raju, S/o Das, Hindu, aged 48 years, R/o Q.No.T-II, 76/701, Salagramapuram Port Quarters, Visakhapatnam … Complainant

    And:

    The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Port Branch, Visakhapatnam

    … Opposite Party
    This case coming on for final hearing on 03-11-2009 in the presence of Sri M.B.Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and of Sri.K.M.Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

    : O R D E R :

    (As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

    1. The factual matrix that led to this dispute between the customer and bank is: -The complainant is having Savings Bank account bearing No.10723947070, with the opposite party Bank. He stood as a guarantor to one P.Anand Rao, who obtained loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the opposite party. The said P.Ananda Rao, retired on 31-10-2008. When Ananda Rao, committed default in paying the loan installment, the opposite party bank sent notice to the complainant informing about the non-payment of the loan installment by principal borrower, and demanded repayment of the same by him as a guarantor. As evidently no repayment was made by the complainant, the Bank exercising its Right of Lien, stopped withdrawal of the amount by the complainant from his Savings Bank Account, evidently to a tune of Rs.20,000/-. This act of the bank was after issue of notice Ex.B.1 & Ex.B.2 dated 18-10-2008 and 07-11-2008 respectively. The Bank asserted that the complainant being a guarantor to the principal borrower, his liability of discharging the debt is co-extensive with that of the principal borrower and it has got right to proceed against him and in that process exercised the Bankers lien on the savings bank account of the complainant. Ex.A.2 letter by the complainant, questioning this act of the opposite party. The complainant asserts that the Bank has to proceed against the principal borrower in the first instance by attaching principal borrower retirement benefits and instead of doing, so wrongly proceeded against him for recovery of the loan. Terming this act of the bank as deficiency of service, this complaint has been filed for a direction to release the attached amount of Rs.20,000/- and also py compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony by virtue of this attachment without any court order besides costs.

    2. At the time of enquiry both the parties filed their affidavits in support of their respective contentions. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 and Ex.B.1 & Ex.B.2 are marked.

    3. The counsel for the complainant filed written arguments reiterating the pleas taken by him.

    4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party while reiterating the right of his client to exercise Bankers lien over the complainant’s Savings Bank Account in order to recover the loan for which he stood as a guarantor, as his liability is co-extensive with that of the principal borrower, relied upon two decisions, one of the Apex Court and other of our High Court in support of his contention, which would be considered at later point of time.

    5. In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination in this complaint is:

    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank.?

    6. The factum of complainant standing as a guarantor for principal borrower for the loan contracted by him, not being in dispute, as rightly contended by the counsel for the bank, the liability of the complainant is co-extensive with the principal borrower and Bank has right to proceed against either of them or both of them for recovery of the debt cannot be disputed. In Punjab National Bank Vs. Surender Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 SC page 1850, it was held by the Apex Court that the Bank had a right to appropriate the debt due from proceeds of the Fixed Deposit Receipt deposited by the guarantor for dues under the debt and credit the balance amount to the savings bank account of the depositor. It was considering validity of criminal complaint against the bank under Section 409 and 409/114 of IPC. It further held that the bank did not act in violation of any law nor converted the amount entrusted to them dishonestly for any purpose. The Apex Court has clearly observed that “it is settled law that the creditor would be entitled to adjust, from the payment of a sum by a debtor, towards the time barred debt. It is also equally settled law that the creditor when he is in possession of an adequate security, the debt due could be adjusted from the security in his possession and custody.” The other decision relied upon by the counsel is in Mahajan Chit Fund and Finance Private Limited Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, Hyderabad, 2003 (5) ALD page 75, wherein the right of the bank to adjust the Fixed Deposit amounts towards the liability of the Company, inspite of specific instructions by some of the share holders not to allow the Executive Director to encash the Fixed Deposit Receipt, has been upheld when such Fixed Deposit Receipt were given as security for the debt contracted by the Company itself, which was not in dispute.

    7. As upheld by the Apex Court and out High Court in the decisions cited above, the Banks Right of lien as a creditor, when he is in possession of adequate security, to adjust from the security in his possession and custody cannot be challenged. Such being the case, act of the opposite party Bank to withhold the payment of Rs.20,000/- from the SB account of the complainant for recovery of the debt, for which he stood as guarantor cannot be held to be a deficiency in service. Hence there are no merits in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. Consequently the complainant is not entitled for direction to be given to the opposite party or payment of damages by it would arise. Accordingly this point is answered.

    8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

    Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 5th day of November,2009.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Dear Sir,

    We had bided for Auction held by SBI for a flat at Airoli New Mumbai in 7/3/2007

    for Rs. 25lac. Being the highest bidder I had recieved a letter on 9/3/07
    from bank & its allotment by paying the amount within 15 days.

    We made the total payment by 13/3/07 ie. within 4 days of recept of allotment
    letter.

    On 25/3/07 we recieved a letter from bank saying possession can not be given
    as the flat onwer whose flat was auctioned has approached DRT court, from
    then till now neither gank has provided us the flat not has return our
    money?

    Now we are in badly need of money we are aged above 70 years.

    All our harden money we surrendered with bank.

    On 29th Oct- 09 We ahd written to bank asking them to return at least
    our ineterest earned on it but til today We have not recieved any
    reply from them.

    Kindly advice us the course of action.

    Regards

    Magan R Singh

    Contact No. 98920 68666
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    dear sir,
    I AM HEMANTA GHOSH.I AM A CUSTOMER OF SBI.MY ACCOUNT NO-30379154967 & MY
    ATM CARD NO. 6220180010600072069.
    SIR COULD NOT GENERATE MY TELEPHONIC PIN.....I GIVEN COMPLEN SOMANYTIME
    ON MY HOME BRANCH AND 1800112211 NUMBER. BUT NOTHING IS HEPPEN TILL
    TODAY. SO PLEASE HELP ME.

    THANK YOU
    HEMANTA GHOSH
    09270828801
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Dear Sir,Mam,
    I have a saving account (30494785582) with SBI, Station Road, Mainpuri (UP).

    I have used Cenra Bank, Cant railway station, Agra on 24.02.09 at 22:44. for
    withdrawal amount Rs.4000/-.

    A bad experience I have gathered. I have not received any money from
    the ATM. But my account showing Rs.4000/- debited for the transaction.

    I have complained to my SBI Branch with proper documents i.e. transaction
    slips etc.
    But the branch manager has not initiated about the matter in my favor.

    SBI not responding about this matter.

    Already nine months passed, please arrange to credit the same to my account
    immediately.

    --
    Thanks & Regards

    Shailesh Pandey
    DMC, Mainpuri & Etawah
    S.M.Network, UNICEF,UP.
    H.No.1313,G.No.6,Panjabi Colony,
    District: Mainpuri-205001.
    Email:dmcmainpuri@gmail.com <Email%3Admcmainpuri@gmail.com>
    Cell :09458821101.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Dear Sir,

    I am an SBI customer. I have taken loan from your bank under PMRY scheme from City
    Branch, Hubli. I could not pay the EMI for 18 months as I incurred loss in my
    business. Any ways I got a call from the recovery department and they asked me to
    renew the account. I did renew my account and assured them to pay back in 18 months.


    Recovery agent one Mr. Joshi(mobile number: 9448301122)from Zonal Office asked me to
    deposit the money in my Saving account(No. 30019639680) and said the amount would
    get transferred to my loan account(No.30037700949).

    As promised I deposited Rs.20000/- in my SB account on 29/09/2009 from Kengeri
    Branch, Bangalore(As I have shifted to Bangalore I could deposit in my branch, i.e
    Hubli City Branch). I called up to Mr. Joshi and asked him to transfer this amount
    to my loan account. He said it will be done.

    To my surprise I got a call from my father( stays in Hubli) after a month and he
    said one Miss. Rupa ( mobile no. 9901709549) from SBI Recovery team had come for
    recovery to my home in Hubli. I was shocked and embbarrased because I thought the
    amount has already been transfered to my loan account.

    To confirm the same I went to Hubli City Branch on 9/11/2009 and got to know the
    amount was still in my saving account. I deposited another Rs.11000 to my account
    and asked the counter clerk to transfer Rs.29000 from my saving account to my loan
    account. He said there is hold on my account due to non payment. Finally he took off
    the hold and transferred the amount to my loan account No. 30037700949.

    I got one more jolt from Miss. Rupa( recovery agent) on 22/11/09. She called me up
    and said I have not made any payment yet. I told her I have made the payment on
    9/11/09 but she was not convinced. Later she said she would re-check and call me
    back. When I called her up today to know where my Rs.29000/ has gone she did not
    give proper response. I called up to Mr. Joshi, he said he is busy in some marriage.


    I cannot go to Hubli City Branch now as I am working in Bangalore.

    Sir, I request you to give clear details about my loan account. If Rs.29000/- is not
    credited in my loan account as Rupa said. I want to know where has my money gone?

    Request you to take necessary action against the concerned people and do justice.

    Thanks and Regards,
    Imtiyaz Tinmaker
    9886106825
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    dear cutomer court,

    respected sir/madam,

    i am herewith mailing the copy of the complaint sent by me to deals 4all
    .net.

    i triued to contact the said firm through phone to seek some justice. but
    all my attempts were futile because they are evasive and do not respond and
    simply ask us to email our complaints. if the delivery of the product was
    delayed over a month , i can imagine how long it would take for them to even
    look in to a customer's grievance.

    hence i request you to kindly guide me and help me in seeking justice at
    the eraliest in this unfair duping customer practices of this said firm by
    false propaganda.

    and i honestly feel that the prestegious SBI bank should also be made a
    party in this fraud because they are encouraging such malpractices of this
    said firm and hence duping cutsomers by mailing the promotional brochures
    with false propaganda about the products of the said firm making gullible
    customers wasting their money only because of the faith in their bank SBI!

    thanking you,
    yours sincerely,
    dr.rajyalakshmi.

    Date: 24.11.09



    From,

    DR.Rajyalakshmi Kapila

    Phone: +919949025910
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    COMPLAINT NO.137/2009

    (Admitted on 24.06.2009)

    PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President

    2. Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member

    3. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member

    BETWEEN:

    Oswald Leo Monteiro,

    Novel House,

    Jayashri Gate,

    1st Cross, Kulshekar, P.O.

    Mangalore-575 005. D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT

    (Advocate for Complainant: Sri. K.Premenath)

    VERSUS

    1. The Manager,

    SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd.,

    P.O. Bag-28, GPO,

    New Delhi – 110 001,

    2. The Manager,

    SBI Cards Collection Centre,

    West Coast Complex,

    Mangalore-575 001. …….OPPOSITE PARTIES

    (Opposite Parties: Exparte)



    ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY



    1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

    This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

    The case of the Complainant is that he was a holder of SBI Card for some time. It is submitted that the Opposite Party has been charging exorbitant interest towards the dues and also found discrepancy in the bill sent to the Complainant. It is stated that Opposite Party has charged 63.8% instead of 37.2% to the last bill.

    It is further stated that, the Opposite Party has sent a sum of Rs.41,000/- D.D. dated 22.5.2006 and the Complainant returned the D.D. stating that he does not want the loan. The Complainant received a monthly statement from Opposite Parties from February 2008 stating that a sum of Rs.20,559.18 was balance payable by the Complainant. The Complainant paid Rs.1,559.18/- on 15.9.2008 and Rs.10,708.40 paid on 17.3.2008 and closed the account by paying Rs.9,574.90/- on 12.4.2008 before the due date and requested the Opposite Party No.1 to issue no due certificate. The Opposite Party instructed the Complainant to destroy the card. The Complainant submits that in the month of May 2008 the Opposite Party sent a statement for Rs.174.24 instead of no due certificate. And again in the month of 25.2.2009 the Opposite Party sent a statement for a sum of Rs.3,320.84. It is contended that the Opposite Party during the absence of the Complainant obtained a Cheque for Rs.160/- from his son during the month of May 2009 stating that the said amount obtained towards the final settlement. It is further contended that the Opposite Party instead of issuing no due certificate has been harassing the Complainant by issuing a bill which amounts to deficiency in service and hence he issued a legal notice demanding the compensation but the Opposite Party threatened the Complainant but not complied the demand therein. Hence the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from the Forum to the Opposite Parties to declare the bills issued by Opposite Parties are illegal and also pay compensation of Rs.11,000/- towards the inconvenience and cost of the proceedings.



    2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Despite of serving notice, the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Parties in this case. The Postal Acknowledgement marked as Court Document No.1 & 2.



    3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

    (i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?



    (ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

    (iii) What order?

    4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Oswald Leo Monteiro (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C20 as listed in the annexure. Opposite Parties not led any evidence placed exparte.

    We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before the Forum and answered the points are as follows:

    Point No.(i): Affirmative.

    Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.



    REASONS



    5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):

    In the instant case, the Complainant himself examined as CW-1 produced Ex C1 to C20. The Complainant produced the supportive documents Ex.C2, C4, C7 and C8 i.e. monthly statement of account issued by the Opposite Parties 11 in numbers and the correspondences between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties reveal that the Complainant was the credit card holder of the Opposite Parties bearing Credit Card No.4317 5750 1550 8329. The Ex C2 reveals that the Opposite Parties issued a letter taking a request dated 31st March 2009 that the SBI Card account stands inactive for usage. And the Ex.C3 is the letter written by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties reflexes that the Complainant sought for no due certificate from the Opposite Parties and the Ex.C11 also reflexes that the SBI Card Account stands for inactive for usage. All the correspondences made by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties clearly reveals that, the Opposite Parties inspite of receiving the entire balance due not issued a no due certificate and keep on sending correspondences stating that it is under consideration. The correspondences as well as the statements 11 in numbers issued by the Opposite Parties supports the case of the Complainant.



    In the given case, the Complainant filed affidavit stated that he had made the entire payment inspite of that no due certificate is not issued and there no due from the Complainant. And further stated that without the knowledge of the Complainant cheque for Rs.160/- was collected from the son of the Complainant during the month of May 2009. Further stated that the Opposite Parties keep on sending statements even though there is no dues. It is significant to note that the Opposite Parties despite of receiving the version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date before the FORA. The entire evidences i.e. oral and documentary evidences are not contraverted/contradicted by the Opposite Parties which requires no further proof.



    The Opposite Parties i.e. SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., should not misuse the computer generated advise already uploaded in the system. They should see the position of the each transaction individually and close the account as soon as the entire amount received by them. But in the given case the Opposite Party officials not issued the no due certificate but on the other hand the monthly statements generated by the Opposite Parties even though the Complainant is not liable to pay any dues. The action of the Opposite Parties definitely caused harassment to the Complainant. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that, the service rendered by the Opposite Parties in this case amounts deficiency and the Complainant was put to inconvenience. Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and also we hereby direct the Opposite Parties not to send the monthly statement on the Credit Card bearing No. 4317 5750 1550 8329. Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.



    6. In the result, we pass the following:
    ORDER

    The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties i.e. SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Manger/Officer incharge is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and further we direct the Opposite Parties to stop sending monthly statement on the Credit Card bearing No. 4317 5750 1550 8329. And Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

    On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated period as mentioned above the Opposite Parties shall pay interest at 10% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.

    Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.



    (Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November 2009.)






    PRESIDENT

    (SMT. ASHA SHETTY)




    MEMBER MEMBER
    (SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)



    ANNEXURE


    WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:

    CW1 – Mr.Oswald Leo Monteiro – Complainant.



    DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:

    Ex C1 – 27.5.2009: Letter to HDFC Bank informing to stop payment.

    Ex C2 – 31.3.2009: Letter by SBI Card to the Complainant.

    Ex C3 – 10.3.2009: Letter by Complainant to Ajay Bharati.

    Ex C4 to C10– Bills issued by Opposite Party.(7 in No.s)

    Ex C11 – 22.7.2008: Letter by Opposite Party to Complainant.

    Ex C12 – 7.6.2008: Letter Complainant to Ajay Bharati.

    Ex C13 to C16: Monthly Statement issued by Opposite Party (4 in Nos.)

    Ex C17 – 22.5.2006: Letter by O.P. to Complainant.

    Ex C18 – 30.5.2006: Letter from Complainant to Mr.Vitual Kwatra.

    Ex C19 – Copy of D.D. for Rs.41,000/-

    Ex C20 – Pass book of Complainant.



    COURT DOCUMENT:

    Doc No.1: Postal Acknowledgement.

    Doc No.2: Postal Acknowledgement.

    WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

    - Nil -

    DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

    - Nil
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    C.C.NO.298/2009

    Friday, the 20th day of November, 2009

    Mr.T. Madhusudanan,

    172/5, Alagannan Street,

    K.K. Pudur, Saibaba Colony,

    Coimbatore – 641 038. --- Complainant

    Vs.

    1. M/s. G.E.Money Financial Services Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    36/6&7, Ashirvdh Building,

    D.B. Road, R.S. Puram,

    Coimbatore – 641 002.

    2. M/s. G.E. Money Financial Services Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    Unit No. 401 & 402,

    4th Floor, Agarwal Millennium Tower,

    E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place,

    Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. --- Opposite Parties



    This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr.K.A. Jaleel Mon Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

    ORDER

    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties claiming amount of Rs.62804 and compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the illegal threat caused to him together with damages for mental agony and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

    The averments in the complaint are as follows:

    1. The complainant is a customer of opposite party obtained a loan of Rs.30,490 on 7.3.06 as per Loan account No..RSCF00010593. The EMI being 2052 payable in 25 monthly instalments. The first opposite party is the branch at Coimbatore and the 2nd opposite party is the head office at Delhi. The complainant settled entire amount on 11.7.07 by paying 19,000 as full and final settlement and pre-closed his account. Despite paying the entire full amount the opposite party is claiming Rs.43,804 as balance due. The opposite parties made several threatening calls to pay the alleged balance due amount. The complainant has sent legal notice on 15.7.08 though they have acknowledged the receipt of the same but there was no response from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

    2. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A9 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.

    1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    ISSUE 1

    3. The case of the complainant is that even after settling the entire loan amount the opposite parties without closing the complainant’s account further demanding extra amount which the complainant is not bound to pay. The complainant issued a legal notice though they acknowledged the receipt but there was no response from the opposite parties. The opposite parties neither appeared nor filed version before this Forum and in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the opposite parties the case of the complainant is to be accepted. On perusal of documents viz. Ex.A5 dt.11.7.07, the complainant has paid 19,000 ie. 3000 as cash and 16,000 as DD for foreclosure and this was not disputed by the opposite parties. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

    4. In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000 as compensation towards stress, mental agony which the complainant underwent due to the attitude of the opposite parties and to pay cost of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 20th day of November, 2009.
Sign In or Register to comment.