Haryana

Sonipat

320/2014

NARESH SEHGAL S/O BALRAJ SEHGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,2. REGINAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.320 of 2014

                                Instituted on:25.11.2014

                                Date of order:11.08.2015

 

Naresh Sehgal son of Shri Balraj Sehgal, resident of H.No.124R, Model Town, Sonepat.                                  

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.State Bank of India, Main Branch, Gur Mandi, Sonepat through its Chief Manager.

2.Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region-IV, DZO-II, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi-01.  

                                                     …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  Ajay S Gehlawat, Adv. For respondent.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is having his account no.10920427942 with the respondent no.1. On 25.6.2014, the complainant when got completed his passbook, he was surprised to know that an amount of Rs.18400/- has been debited in his account on 19.6.2014 for the reasons ATM Rec. for lack of ATM. The complainant wrote a letter dated 28.6.2014 to the respondent no.1 in this regard and vide letter dated 30.6.2014, the respondent no.1 informed the complainant that the amount has been deducted from the complainant’s account as per checking report of the official.  The complainant was retired from his services while working under the respondent no.1 on 31.5.2014 after giving clearance of his all accounts.  The complainant has written so many letters to the respondents, but of no use and the complainant constantly requested the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.18400/- which was deducted from his account wrongly and illegally, but the respondents have refused to refund the amount and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have admitted the complainant as their employee and he is also having the account with the respondents.  The amount of Rs.18400/- as alleged by the complainant was debited from his account.  The respondents have denied the fact that any clearance of the accounts of the complainant was given to the complainant  and there was no amount of any kind left due on the date of his retirement from his services.  The recovery from the complainant was effected on the written instructions of Regional Manager of respondent no.2 on the basis of Central Inspection Audit on Circle Level which is conducted after every 18 months in respondent no.1 branch as the complainant had got the amount without maintaining backup register which is mandatory to maintain regarding ATM maintenance as per the banking rules, regulations and instructions.  There was no entry about the extra work done by the complainant on Sunday/Holidays/Late sitting  as alleged by the complainant.   Without maintaining the backup register, no  payment for holidays/late sitting/Sunday can be made to the complainant. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment of any kind at the hands of the respondents and there is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the respondents wrongly, illegally and only to harass & humiliate the complainant  has debited Rs.18400/- from his account and the complainant is entitled to get the refund of this amount from the respondents.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the recovery from the complainant was effected on the written instructions of Regional Manager of respondent no.2 on the basis of Central Inspection Audit on Circle Level which is conducted after every 18 months in respondent no.1 branch as the complainant had got the amount without maintaining backup register which is mandatory to maintain regarding ATM maintenance as per the banking rules, regulations and instructions.  There was no entry about the extra work done by the complainant on Sunday/Holidays/Late sitting  as alleged by the complainant.   Without maintaining the backup register, no  payment for holidays/late sitting/Sunday can be made to the complainant. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment of any kind at the hands of the respondents and the is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents.  We have perused the document Ex.C6 wherein it has been mentioned by the Regional Manager that “We commend that bills are genuine regarding ATM complaints, cashing balance due to chest branch at late hours and camp organized for saving bank account opening and PAI on Sunday/Holiday. Kindly provide us post facto approval”.

          The plea of the respondents that the complainant had got the amount without maintaining backup register which is mandatory to maintain regarding ATM maintenance as per the banking rules, regulations and instructions, is not tenable in the eyes of law because maintaining backup register is the duty of the Branch Manager and not of the employee.  Thus, it is held that the respondents have wrongly deducted Rs.18400/- from the complainant’s account and he definitely is entitled to get back his aforesaid amount from the respondents. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to credit the amount of Rs.18400/- in the account of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:11.08.2015