DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _55 _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_28.4.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _20.7.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Susanta Mandal, son of late Panchanan Mandal of A-25/1, Rabindranagar, P.O Bartala, P.S Rabindranagar, Kolkata – 18.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. State Bank of India, (Panchur Branch), Rabindranagar, P.O Bartala, Kolkata – 18.
Proforma O.P : 2. The Cashier, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. 41, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata – 71.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
A Sexagenarian, the complainant has approached this Forum by filing the instant complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank authority i.e the O.P -1.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
On 18.7.2014 the complainant went to the Panchuur Branch of SBI i.e the O.P-1 for withdrawing Rs.1,50,000/- . He withdrew the same from the counter of the O.p-1. He was given currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- denomination in two bundles in loose manner, fastened with a rubber band. Thereafter, he received the same and went away from the counter. On 19.7.2014 he went to his creditor i.e Tata Motors Finance Ltd. for depositing the same. When deposited the same in the counter of that Finance Company, the cashier at the counter of the said company detected ,while counting the notes, that a 1000/- rupee note was fake. The said note was bearing no.9B WL 659212. ON 21.7.2014 the complainant went to the SBI , Panchur Branch and requested them to accept the fake note and give him a genuine note of 1000 denomination. But the request of the complainant was not given due attention by the bank authority. He also requested the Branch Manager to take proper action in this regard. But the Branch Manager also turned a deaf ear to the request of the complainant. Thus, the request of the complainant turned out to be a blind alley. The complainant also submitted his grievance before the other authority i.e Ombudsman of the Reserve Bank of India but the said authority has also remained quite reticent. Having failed to get his desired relief, he i.e the complainant has approached this Forum, praying for refund of Rs.1000/- and also for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment . Hence, arises the case.
Both the O.P nos. 1 and 2 have filed written statements separately ,wherein it is stated by them that there is no deficiency in service on their part , that there is no cause of action arising for initiation of this case and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Has the O.P-1 committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide his petition dated 27.11.2017. Evidence on affidavit is led on behalf of the O.P-1. The BNA filed is kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties. Perused the complaint, written statements filed herein . Considered all these.
The main plank of the allegation of the complainant is that the O.P-1 has supplied a fake note of Rs.1000/- denomination in the bundle of notes handed over to him from the counter of O.P-1 Bank. It also transpires in the evidence of the complainant that he left the counter of the bank after having the possession of the notes from the counter. That there is a 1000/- rupee fake note in the bundle was detected only when the complainant went to the counter of his Finance company to deposit the said money. All these facts are stated by the complainant in his evidence and we find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve this evidence of the complainant.
Now, from these facts it emerges that the fake note might have been inserted in the bundles which are given to the complainant by the bank either by someone of the bank or by someone in the house of the complainant. But, there is no exact proof before us to come to a conclusion about the place ,where the said fake note was inserted in the bundle of the complainant or by whom. Under such circumstances, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt where and who inserted the fake note in those bundles. Absence of concrete proof in this regard compels us to conclude that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps , as the complainant has not been able to substantiate this part of his allegation.
But there is one allegation which stands substantiated by the evidence of the complainant and such thing also goes undisputed. The allegation is that the Bank supplied notes from its counter to the complainant in loose manner and that the bank did not verify the genuineness of the notes supplied to the complainant in presence of the complainant . That the notes were supplied in a loose bundle and that the same were not tested in presence of the complainant go to stand undisputed, because such facts have not been controverted by O.P-1. As the notes were handed over to the complainant in loose manner, there was a scope left with the mischievous person to insert the fake note within those bundles. Had the Bank taken effective and proper step to fulfill this lacuna, the mischievous person would not have been able to insert the said fake note in those bundles ,which were given to the complainant from the bank counter. The notes which were supplied to the complainant in Bundles were fastened by a rubber band and, therefore, those notes were easily separable and easily replaceable. This is not the proper way of delivery of the notes to the customers from the bank counter. Bank should have ensured proper safety and security , so that the mischievous persons cannot get any access to their transaction , nor can they cause damage to the innocent customers. The Bank should have either stapled or tightly fastened one end of the bundled notes with SBI emblem, keeping a considerable portion of the bundle open for facilitating check of their genuineness by the machine of the Bank. In addition to that, Bank should have tested the genuineness of the notes in the counter in presence of the customers. Had all these been done by the Bank, the customer could not have blamed the bank for presence of any fake note within the bundle supplied by them to the customer. All these precautions have not been taken by the O.P-1 in the case of the complainant. The absence of such precaution is tantamount to inadequacy in the manner and performance of service and such inadequacy is considered to be a kind of deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. The Bank is liable for such kind of deficiency in service and the complainant is ,therefore, deemed entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed 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 Bank is directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount including the cost amount will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
No other specific order for compensation on account of harassment and mental agony is passed herein in favour of the complainant ,considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
T
