FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN,MEMBER
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant Smt Snigdha Ghosh having her saving account being no.3562795 since 12.03.2016 at State Bank of India ,Metiaburuz Branch,Kolkata.The complainant deposited sum of Total amount Rs,47,500/ ( Forty seven thousand five hundred ie,16000 on 12.07.2017,16,200 on 27.07.2017, and 15,300 on 01.08.2017) only at a State Bank Kiosk Banking (Customer service Point) C.S.P Code 1312 through Mr Indranil Saha OP no.3 at link branch Metiaburuz code-
3881by issuing pay-in-deposit slip of Rs,47,500 with duly stamped on the counter part.Later, when the complainant updated the passbook at Metiaburuz branch it came to know that the said deposited amount of Rs,47,500/ has not credited to her account .The complainant with her father visited and informed the issue to Branch Manager,Regional Branch Manager of SBI but the issue remains unsolved. The complainant wrote letters to Branch Manager,Regional, Branch Manager on 10.08.2018 at their respective branches but no positive response they received. The complainant also sent a notice to OP 2 and 3 on 25.02.2019 for legal action against them.Further, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Officer-In-charge Metiaburuz P.S but nothing recovered. Finally,The complainant compelled to register the case at DCDRC Kolkata-Unit II being case no CC-189/2019 against OP 1 and 2 .That the complainant failed to render service to the complainant for which they are to pay the deposited amount only with interest accured thereon from the date of deposit to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs,1 lakh and Rs,50,000/ as litigation cost.
The OPs have contested the case by filing W/V contending inter-alia that the Complaint is not maintainable both in facts and in law. The Complaint is vexatious ,malafide, motivated,manufactured and misconceived.The complainant deposited the amount through SBI kiosk but Kiosk generated computerized bill not hand generated bill as the complainant deposited the amount with OP 3 not through SBI Kiosk.So,in this case the SBI is not responsible for anykind of negligence on their part rather the amount handover to OP 3 and the same issued the receipt of the deposited amount.The OPs further stated that Kiosk banking is unmanned service provided to the customers.Kiosk banking is a safe and reliable as they are biometrically secured and a printed acknowledgement for every transaction.Further,the OPs stated that the complainant has filed this vague case as such the instant case liable to be dismissed U/S 26 of the CP Act,1986.
On the pleading of the parties the following points have necessarily come up for determination:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2) Whether there is any unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.
3) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both parties have tendered their evidence on affidavit however neither OP 3 nor his advocate was present.No WV is filed by the OP3.No extension of time prayed to file WV.Therefore we have no option but to proceed the case ex-parte against OP3. The complainant has filed reply to the questionnaire set forth by the OP 1 and 2. The complainant has filed questionnaire to the OPs. Both parties have also filed their BNAs. We have travelled over all the documents placed on record.
Facts remain that the complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs,47,500/ State Bank Kiosk (Customer service point ,code-1312) which was handled by OP3.Later,when the complainant updated her bank passbook she found that the deposited amount has not credited to her saving account no.3562795.The complainant approached to SBI officials for the issue but no such fruit full result found.The OPs have tendered several referances and guidelines related to State Bank of India –KIOSK Banking CSP” State Bank of India CSP permits its customers to avail all the basic banking facilities without having to visit the actual bank for services like cash withdrawal, cash deposit, account opening,remittance etc” OPs have stated in their BNA that Kiosks are unmanned devices,self service operation means lower worker overhead as business do not need to employ attendents to operate the Kiosk.The Maximum limit of transactions is Rs,10,000/- per day.No cheque book is issued.only cash transations can be made &only in person by the account holder.There is no signature required and only electric thumb impression is used to access /use the account. It is also staed In this Kiosk.
From the above references and knowhow about the functioning of Kiosk it is found that the OP 1 and OP 2 have no role to play in the instant case as it all depends on electronically transactions.
But it is also a fact which the bank can not be denied as the Kiosk/CSP are the registered under the concerned SBI Branch and the same is allotted with a number Code 1312 through Mr Indranil Saha OP no.3 at link branch Metiaburuz code-3881.It is said to be the “Mini Bank”.The concerned person collecting money and issuing payment receipt of State Bank of India within the jurisdiction of the Metiaburuz branch and the Bank was quite silent ,so how the Bank denied of their knowledge of involvement in this matter.
Further,After receiving the complaint regarding the complainant’s issue,the Bank have not taken any step to resolve the matter and no letter was issued by the OP 1 and OP2 to the OP3 for unfair trade practice who was a part and partial of the bank , rather they tried to escape from their liability.
Now ,if we discussed the OP3’s role,his involvement is important as he is the only person who handled the cash and online deposited the amount in the complanant’s account.Had the complainant confirmed whether the OP3 deposited the amount at exact account no.which she provided or some other account no .intentionally/ mistakenly?
The Complainant in her letter to The Officer In-Charge,Metiaburuz P.S Kolkata mentioned that “On updating my passbook in SBI Metiaburuz Branch,I came to know that said Indranil Saha did not deposit said amount of money in my account”.It is clear from the OP3’s intention and the complainant’s words that whether the amount have deposited in her account or not?
Further,the complainant tried to establish in her BNA that the OP3 is the employee of the State Bank Of India ,Metiaburuz Branch which she fails to established and not a single document provided which proves that the OP3 is a State Bank of India’Metiaburuz Branch employee.
As such we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP 1 and OP 2 and OP 3 and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service have been adopted by the OP1 and OP 2 and OP 3 in the said matter. Thus all the points are answered in the negative.
In the result the complaint succeed .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the Complaint Case be and the same is disposed of on contest of the OP 1 and OP 2 and ex-parte against OP3 without any cost.
OPs are directed jointly and severely to refund Rs,47,500/ to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order.
The complainant is at liberty to put the matter into execution if the OPs transgress to comply the order of this commission.
