Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case was filed by Ganesh Gharami S/o. Late Basanta Gharami of Village Durganar, P.O. & P.S. – Kulpi, District – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743 351 against Branch Manager of SBI Kiosk Banking, Palash Halder, the Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India and Director of Vivekananda Institute of Bio-Technology, Sri Ramkrishna Ashram, Nimpith, with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to credit the full maturity amount as deposited for a term of one year with all accumulated interest in favour of the complainant along with such further cost or compensation, to give compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only.
OP No.1 is Branch Manager of SBI, Kiosk Banking, a Govt. of India undertaking. The address is Kulpi Branch, P.O. & P.S. – Kulpi, Dist. – 24 Pgs(South), Pin – 743 351.
OP No.2 is Palash Halder, Customer Service Provider of SBI Kiosk Banking, S/o. Bhabadhyuti Halder. Link Branch is Kulpi. The address is Village-Durga Nagar, P.O. & P.S. – Kulpi, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South), Pin – 743 351.
OP No.3 is Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, F 1 and MF Department. The address is IHO, Kolkata, local Head Office is at Samriddhi Bhavan,1 Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001.
OP No.4 is the Director, Vivekananda Institute of Bio-technology. Sri Ramkrishna Ashram, Nimpith, operating SBI Kiosk Banking, Link Branch-Kulpi. The address of the office is Village – Nimpith, P.O. – Nimpith Ashram, P.S. – Joynagar, Dist. – 24 Pags (South), Pin – 743 338.
The complainant by filing the case stated that one agreement was signed between OP Nos. 3 and 4. The OP No.3 allowed OP No.4 to operate the SBI Kiosk Banking. The Link Branch is Kulpi. On 08.11.2018, the complainant deposited a total sum of money of Rs.49,000/- in a fixed deposit account being no.38054759429 for 1 year and the maturity date was 08.11.2019. OP No.2 is the authorized agent of OP Bank. The maturity value has been fixed as Rs.52,307/-. The complainant got a receipt in this regard.
After maturity the complainant could not withdraw the money. The OP No.1 took time but they did not disburse the maturity amount.
That the cause of action arose on 08.11.2019 and it is still continuing.
Hence, the complainant prays for directing the OPs to credit maturity amount of Rs.52,307/- which has been matured on 08.11.2019 with all accumulated interest in favour of the complainant along with imposing such further cost, compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- .
The OP No.3, in his written version stated that the instant complaint case is not at all maintainable either in law or in fact.
OP No.3 is not deficient in providing proper service. OP No.2 denies that being advised by OP No.2 the complainant deposited Rs.49,000/- on 08.11.2018, for a period of one year. And the maturity amount has been fixed on Rs.52,307/- on 08.11.2019.
The OP No.3 denies that on 08.11.2018 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.49,000/-. It was to be matured on 08.11.2019 in the name of the complainant. OP No.3 states that OP No.2 acted fraudulently. The OP No.4 was authorized to engage subagents employed by OP No.4 and has provided general identity in clause 9 of the agreement. OP No.4 will bear the responsibility to indemnify the bank including loss of reputation and business. There is no responsibility of OP No.3. If there is any such transaction in that case OP No.2 and OP No.4 are liable. The complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief.
OP No.3 prays for dismissal of the case.
OP No.4 states that the petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. OP No.4 categorically denies each and every allegation leveled against him. It is denied that there is gross negligence on the part of OP No.4. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4.
OP No.2 has no knowledge regarding the deposit of Rs.49,000/- against the account No.38054759420. OP No.4 has no knowledge regarding any other deposit. Everything is known to OP No.2.
OP No.4 entered into an agreement with State Bank of India having its central office is at Mumbai.
OP No.4 on 27.12.2018, entered into an agreement with OP No.2, herein as customer service provider (Palash Halder). OP No.4 has no right to appoint any customer service provider. It is also evident from the agreement dated 27.07.2019.
OP No.2 may forge some documents in his personal capacity. OP No.2 himself came to know all these and terminated the agreement between himself and OP No.4. A complaint was also lodged against OP No.2 at Kulpi P.S. being case no.318/2019 U/S 420/406/468/471/409 IPC. The money receipt produced by the complainant is manufactured. Kiosk permits the limit of fixed deposit to Rs.10,000/- and this procedure is followed through out India.
That the case was filed on 18.12.2020. That the case was admitted on 07.01.2021. On 09.03.2021, Ld. Lawyers of OPs 1 and 2 are absent on call. So the case proceeded ex-parte against OPs 1 and 2. A petition was filed under order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 for addition of parties. The Deputy General Manager, SBI and Director Vivekananda Institute of Bio-technology were made parties as OPs 3 and 4 respectively. On 12.11.2021, the complainant prays for amendment of the cause title in respect of OP No.3. The prayer for amendment is allowed. On 03.12.2021, the complainant prays for expunging the name of OP No.1. The petition is rejected. On 03.12.2021, the complainant prays for expunging the name of OP No.1. The petition is rejected. On 03.12.2021, Ld. Lawyer of OP No.3 prays for filing W/V and power. The prayer is allowed. On 13.01.2022, OP No.3 files W/V. On 23.02.2022, the complainant files evidence on affidavit. On 29.03.2022, OP No.4 files questionnaire. On 05.02.2022, OP No.3 files questionnaire. Copy served. On 25.07.2022 the complainant files reply to the questionnaire. On 28.09.2022, no step is taken by OP No.03. On 02.11.2022, the complainant files BNA. On 15.12.022, Ld. Lawyer of complainant and OP No.1 are present. Argument was heard. OP No.3 files BNA. Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement.
OP No.4 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Points for consideration :-
- Is the complainant, a consumer?
- Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
Point No.1:-
After perusing all the documents on record, it appears that the complainant deposited Rs.49,000/- on 08.11.2018 to SBI Kiosk Banking of which the link branch is Kulpi. The complainant received money receipt, against those payments. The aforesaid payment was made on different dates. Hence, the complainant is a consumer U/S 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. So the first point is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No:2 :
The complainant is a consumer. He deposited money in SBI Kiosk Banking. The Kiosk was situated at Kulpi and the link branch was SBI Kulpi Branch. An agreement was signed on 27.07.2019 between the OPs 3 and 4. OP No.3 permitted SBI Kiosk Banking to operate the system. OP No.2 was appointed by OP No.4 as customer service provider of SBI Kiosk Banking. OP No.2 received money from the complainant. Money receipt was given to the complainant. The complainant, being an innocent person, deposited money thinking that he is depositing money to State Bank of India. OP No.2, being the customer service provider did not provide service to the clients. As per records of agreement, OP No.3 appointed OP No.4 and OP No.4 appointed OP No.2, through another agreement. He collected money on behalf of SBI. The complainant is not responsible for the activity of OP No.2. OP No.3, OP No.4, OP No.2 are inter related with each other. The complainant suffers for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, adopted by the OPs 1, 2, 3, 4. It is clear that the complainant deposited money to SBI. Hence the first point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
Point No.03 :-
The complainant is supposed to get Rs.52,307/- on maturity. Because the complainant deposited money and he possesses the receipts. As per written version of OP No.3, the complainant is not responsible for the malpractice adopted by OP No.4. The complainant deposited money, received the receipt. Being an ignorant person, he thought that he is depositing money to SBI. The CSP also informed that he was collecting money on behalf of SBI. The SBI branch is far from the village. So SBI Kiosk Banking has been opened to collect money from clients. As the complainant does not get the matured amount, he is spending time in mental agony and pain. Hence the third point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against OPs 3 and 4 and ex-parte against OPs 1 and 2 with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand).
That the OPs jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs.52,307/- (Rupees fifty two thousand three hundred and seven) only with 9% interest w.e.f. 08.11.2019 till realization within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the OPs jointly and / or severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) for mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) is to be paid by the OPs jointly and / or severally within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the OPs are at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within 45 days from the date of this order.
Ld. Member Sri Partha Kumar Basu joined on 11.04.2023 and he did not take part in hearing the argument of the case. As such he did not sign the judgement and order passed on this day.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sangita Paul
Member
