DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 12_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 31.01.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 6.4.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & JhunAu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Parimal Ghosal Vill. Ghoshpur, P.O South Garia, P.S Baruipur, South 24-Parganas ,743613.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Bank Manager, S.B.I, Champahati , Pin-743330, Baruipur, P.O Chakpahati.
2. Capital First, 15, Park Street, 5th floor, Apeeje House, Kolkata-700 016.
_____________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The facts of the complaint, in a nutshell is that the complainant namely Parimal Ghosal has been cheated by one Raju Pal who identified himself as the complainant by way of false personation and he managed to take a loan from “Capital First Limited” i.e O.P-2 for Rs.55,800/-. O.P-2 granted the loan and issued E.C.S (Electronic Clearing System) mandate to the bank i.e O.p-1 for deduction of monetary charges from the account of the complainant instant complainant. The deduction was so made by the bank from the account of the complainant. In the month of January 2017 complainant went to the bank i.e O.p-1 to make deposit of some amount of money and it was at that time he came to know that money was deducted from time to time from his account. He enquired with the manager of the bank who asked him to close the account. But, instead of closing the account, Rs.3157/- was deducted from time to time from his account and such deduction was permitted by the bank without making proper verification of his signature. So, it is the allegation of the complainant that deduction has been made from his account due to negligence of the bank authority. Hence, this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1, praying for return of the money deducted unlawfully by the bank and also for compensation.
The O.P-1 has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant is a consumer of the bank and that he took a loan from O.P-2 and charges was deducted from his account as per DDR presented by the O.P-2 through ECS mandate. It is further stated by the O.P-1 that on 24.1.2017 complainant lodged a complaint against such deduction and the matter was taken up with appropriate authority for enquiry. But before the enquiry came to an end, the complainant has filed the instant case alleging deficiency in service against them. According to the Bank , the deduction was made as per ECS mandate executed by the O.p-2 and the bank i.e O.P-1 has no role to play in respect of such deduction. Still, the deducted amount has been credited to the account of the complainant.
O.P-2 has also filed written statement ,wherein it is stated by him that the allegation of fraud has been levelled against one Raju Pal. This court has no jurisdiction to enquire into such allegation and, therefore, the case is not maintainable. It is further stated by the O.P-2 that the loan was granted following proper procedure and the O.P-2 is in no way privy to the fraud as alleged by the complainant. It has no laches in this regard and if there is any laches, it is laches caused by the O.P-1 i.e the Bank. The complaint is false, frivolous and as such it should be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the pleadings of both the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable against the O.Ps?
- Is the O.P-1 guilty of deficiency in service for negligently debiting the money from the account of the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and the same is kept in the record. No evidence is filed on behalf of the O.Ps. The questionnaire and reply filed herein are also kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1:-
It has been contended on behalf of the O.P-2 that the instant case is not maintainable, inasmuch as this Forum cannot proceed with the enquiry in a case where allegation of fraud is levelled. It is true that the complainant has levelled an allegation of fraud against one Raju Pal. It is his case that one Raju Pal took loan from O.P-2 by posing himself as the complainant and he has thus deceived the complainant. In the face of such allegation, it appears to us that the complaint is not maintainable in so far as the O.P-2 is concerned. But it is amply maintainable against the Bank i.e O.P-1 against whom there is allegation of deficiency in service brought by the complainant.
Point no.1 is thus disposed of accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3 :-
Now to see whether the Bank i.e O.P-1 has actually committed any deficiency in service by allowing deduction of money from the account of the complainant. There is no dispute as to the fact that the account is maintained by the complainant with the Bank i.e O.P-1. The complainant has stated in his petition of complaint that the bank has acted irresponsibly and by acting in such a way it has allowed deduction of money from his account in favour of O.P-2 without properly verifying the signature of the complainant which lies in the record of the Bank. The allegation is genuinely a serious one and the Bank should have addressed this allegation with perfect aplomb . But a perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the Bank reveals that there is not a single word uttered by the Bank to counteract the allegation levelled against it by the complainant. We know very well that an averment of the complainant will be deemed to be admitted if not contradicted
or denied by the O.P. Considering this aspect we feel no hesitation to say that the complainant has been able to prove that the bank is guilty of deficiency in service by negligently allowing deduction of money from the account of the complainant.
The negligence of the Bank also stands proved if we consider the matter from a different angle. The Bank has deducted the amount from the account of the complainant in accordance with the ECS Debit mandate issued by the O.P-2. There is prescribed Form for ECS debit mandate and this Form is required to be filled up and signed by the customer before getting it produced with the service provider.
In the instant case, a Xerox copy of ECS mandate form is filed herein and this form bears the signature of the complainant i.e Parimal Ghosal.There is also specimen signature of the complainant kept preserved on the record of the Bank. The bank authority could have compared the signature of the ECS mandate form with the specimen signature of the complainant, which is kept in the Bank. Had this thing been done by the Bank properly, no unlawful deduction of money would have been made from the account of the complainant. But the Bank has not made any comparison of two signatures and without making any such comparison it has allowed the deduction of money from the account of the complainant. We keep money in the coffer of the bank and the bank will have to bear the responsibility to ensure safe deposit of the money. If such responsibility is not discharged properly by the bank, the people of the country will suffer to a large extent and in that case, the irresponsible discharge of duty by the bank authoritywill certainly amount to deficiency in service . Regards being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion as made out above, we make no scruple to say that the bank has committed gross deficiency in service by allowing deduction of money from the account of the complainant, without making proper verification of this signature.
In the result the case succeed.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P-1 with a cost of Rs.2000/- and dismissed on contest against O.P-2 without cost.
The O.P-1 i.e the Bank is directed to make refund of Rs.2371.00 , if not refunded earlier to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant along with Rs.2000/- as cost as referred to above within a month of this order, failing which, the refund amount, if not refunded earlier, the compensation amount and the amount of cost will bear interest @10% p.a until full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
We / I agree.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
