Date of filing:- 17/04/2018.

Date of Order:-19/02/2020.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)

B A R G A R H

Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2018

Saubhagyalaxmi Mishra, aged about 48(forty eight) years, wife of Debadatta Mishra, resident of Kalimandir Chowk, Ward

No.13(thirteen), Po. Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh, Dist. Bargarh, at present Kalimandir Chowk, Ward No.13(thirteen), Po and Dist. Bargarh.                  

                                                                                                                                                                                ..... ..... .... Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, Bargarh, represented through its Branch Manager, Near Bandu Tikra Chhak, Old NH-6, Bargarh, Po/Ps and Dist. Bargarh.

2. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, RBO, Bargarh, Near Bandu Tikra Chhak, Old NH-6, Bargarh, Po/Ps and Dist. Bargarh.                                                                                                                                                                            ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri S. Panda, Advocate with associate Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri A.K.Patra, Advocate with associate Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two) :- Sri M.K.Satpathy, Advocate with associate Advocate.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.19/02/2020. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the case :-

The case of the Complainant in nut sell is an allegation of deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party as envisaged hereunder.

The case of the Complainant is that she being a consumer of the Opposite Party’s Bank having her fixed deposit, she was facilitated with an overdraft withdrawal facility having been issued with an ATM card and also a cheque book against the same. And she was using the same and time to time was paying her premium of insurance to different insurance company through direct debit from her said account and also by issuing cheque since a long but suddenly on Dt.06.03.2018, she got a message from her insurer that her debit has been declined by the Opposite Party due to insufficient fund in her said account even though she had instructed the Opposite Party to make payment of Rs.6,806.64/-(Rupees six thousand eight hundred six and sixty four paise)only, and her case is that by that time there was more than one lakh in her said account, being shocked the Complainant reported the same before the Opposite Party and in response the Opposite Party admitted his fault as one technical mistake and asked her to fill up one form and submit the same before him which was complied with by her on Dt.06.03.2018 and subsequently thereafter on the inquiry of the Complainant she was assured by the Opposite Party that her said account has been regularized hence she could operate the same.

And on being assured by the Opposite Party that her said account has been regularized, issued a cheque vide No.597933 for an amounting to Rs.54,072/-(Rupees fifty four thousand seventy two)only in favour of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co Ltd. towards her premium amount but to her surprise again she got an intimation letter from her insurer on Dt.24.03.2018 that her said cheque has been returned being dishonored due to insufficient funds in it, even though sufficient funds was available with her said account by that time, which of such acts of the Opposite Party is alleged to have been an act of deficiencies of service and negligence of his duty, so somehow or other she managed to pay her premium amount to the insurance company by making other arrangement.

In furtherance to her allegation is that an amount of Rs.590/-(Rupees five hundred ninety)only has been deducted from her account which she could know from her account statement, towards the penalty against the dishonor of those said cheques furthermore to her surprise an amount of Rs.23.60/-(Rupees twenty six and sixty paise)only has been deducted from her said account against her attempt to withdraw some cash though the same was also declined due to insufficient funds even though there was sufficient funds in her said account, again to her surprise further amount of Rs.23.60/-(Rupees twenty six and sixty paise)only has been debited from her said account on Dt.27.03.2018 when she withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only from the ATM of PNB, and also her allegation is that even though she has withdrawn an amount of Rs.100/-(Rupees one hundred)only from the GCc of Opposite Party having power of withdrawing more than Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only which of such acts of the Opposite Party is nothing but an act of deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice on his part, which has caused her harassment both mentally, physically and financially too. And as such has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only as compensation towards her such sufferings, and in substantiating her case has relied on the following documents:-

1. Copy of mail issued by the Exide Life insurance Dt.06.03.2018.

2. Receipt Dt.12/03/2018 issued by Exide Life.

3. Cheque dishonor letter Dt.24/03/2018 issued by Bajaj Allianz along with copy of cheque.

4. Receipt Dt.27/03/2018 issued by Bajaj Allianzs.

5. Statement of OD account of Complainant.

Having gone through the Complaint petition and the accompanied documents with the same and on hearing the learned counsel for her the case is admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Party and in response he appeared before the Forum through his advocate and filed his version.

The rival contention of the Opposite Party is denial to the allegation of the Complainant with regard to it’s negligence and deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice, he has denied its responsibility with a plea that the case of the Complainant is a true one but it is not due to their intentional negligence but for the technical mistakes of the computer system.

While hearing was taken up the learned counsels for the respective Parties placed their plea vehemently before the Forum along with their documents. And on perusal of the entire materials available before us in the record, it came to our Notice that the Opposite Party has clearly admitted that the Complainant is a privileged customer of their Bank and also the allegation leveled against their institution is also a fact one having being fortified with the documents in support of the case of the Complainant and also while considering the plea of the Opposite Party we felt extremely astonished with their reply in their version and also with the arguments of their learned counsels that it was a mere mistake with their computer system but not by intention.

In this regard we feel it necessary to mention here the principle laid down by the Dr. Damodaran report placed in the month of February-2011 with regard to the activities and duty of the Financial Institution while dealing with their consumer wherein he has clearly mentioned as to how they should deal with, in nut sell they should be transparent and most active in their duties to the satisfaction of their Customer, whereas in the present case even though the Opposite Party has admitted that the allegation of the Complainant is a true one on the other hand has also tried to shift their responsibility on the technicalities in their computer system even though it is an admitted fact that the update of the system is also coming under their responsibility, furthermore the plea of the Opposite Party in his version in second paragraph of the point No.5(five) that it was within his knowledge but for the workload could not comply with his duty, which is nothing but a serious negligence of his duty which amounts to unfair trade practice coupled with unfair trade practice for which a dignified Lady customer of the Bank has been made to suffer mentally, physically, financially and emotionally for which he is liable, as such in our view the Opposite Party is very much liable for serious action under the provision envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as such our conscious and consensus view is expressed against the Opposite Party hence our order follows.

O R D E R

Hence the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards compensation to the Complainant in lieu of her mental, physical, financial, emotional suffering with an interest @ 6%(six percent ) per annum from the date of filing of the case till date of Order within thirty days of receipt of the Order and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards her litigation expenses in default of which the total amount would accrue an interest @ 12 % (twelve percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.

And in continuation of our direction, the Opposite Party is cautioned not to repeat with the same activities with any of it’s customer in future.

Accordingly the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and the same being pronounced in the open Forum is disposed off to-day on Dt.19/02/2020.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

 ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                       P r e s i d e n t.

                                                                  I agree,

                                         ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                        M e m b e r (W).

        Uploaded by

Sri Dusmanta Padhan

Office Assistant, Bargarh