The grievance which was lodged 3rd time through CPGRAMS Portal on 29.06.2016 was closed on 14.07.2016 with a response from the Department of Financial Services, SBI, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. It was stated that complainant has been advised suitably by the SMECC Branch though a letter but neither copy of letter was traceable in the portal nor he received any such letter by post. In the name of response through the letter, the Department kept hiding the matter of fraudulent withdrawal 3rd time in CPGRAM Portal. On 20.07.2016 complainants’ father received a call from Mobile No. 96747 10315 and enquired him if he had indeed made the complaint, dated 23.08.2014 against the SBI, Kidderpore Branch. After establishing the genuineness of complaint the caller identified himself as an official of Vigilance Department, SBI, Kolkata and asked the complainants’ father to meet him in the SBI Kidderpore Branch with the disputed cheque leaf. He further told complainants’ father that the date and time of visit in branch would be informed in due time and he would also be present in the branch on the day of visit. After the communication over the said mobile the complainants’ father placed his proposal through an e-mail dated 21.07.2016 to the DGM(Vig), SBI, LHO, Kolkata and sent its copy to CVO (Vig) SBI, Mumbai. complainants’ father that the cheque leaf bearing No. 239057 which was in his possession was the only proof of the fraudulent withdrawal and needed to preserve with utmost care for investigation as and when required. So he requested the DGM (Vig), LHO, Kolkata to issue an authorization letter stating the name of an official to whom he would to hand over the said cheque leaf under acknowledgement for necessary action. Complainants’ father now wanted to deal directly with the Department of Vigilance, SBI, LHO, Kolkata, so that the OP could not delay the process of investigation or play tricks any more. Complainants’ father received an e-mail from OP on 21.07.2016 at 06.59 p.m. The OP advised the complainants’ father to visit the branch on 22.07.2016 at 12.00 o clock along with original cheque leaf. OP also stated that an official of SBI, LHO, Kolkata will be present in the settlement process but he did not mentioned the name of an official to whom the cheque leaf would be handed over as proposed by complainants’ father through his mail dated 21.07.2016. Complainants’ father was with some doubt of the term of settlement process and confused not to see the name of the official to whom the cheque leaf would be handed over for which he again sent a mail dated 22.07.2016 to the DGM (Vig), SBI, Kolkata requesting him to advise the Branch Manager that the handing over of the cheque book of the 38 cheque leafs should be under proper acknowledgment with his signature and stamped and witnessed by 3 witnesses. A copy of the e-mail was also sent to the CVO, SBI, Mumbai and OP. On 22.07.2016 no official from the SBI, LHO, Kolkata was present in the bank branch contrary to what was stated by the OP in his e-mail dated 21.07.2016. Thus the complainants’ father lost the opportunity to deal with an official of the department of vigilance, SBI, Kolkata to whom he had expected to hand over the disputed cheque leaf as per his plan. OP received a photocopy of the disputed cheque leaf bearing No. 239057 under acknowledgement on the pretext of investigation. The acknowledgement of receiving the photocopy of the original cheque leaf was nothing but an eye wash. The effort of complainants’ father to hand over the original cheque leaf to an official of Vigilance Department, SBI, Kolkata or OP failed to materialize. On the same day i.e. 22.07.216 when the complainants’ father reached home after the meeting received another mail from OP dated 22.07.2016 at 02.40 p.m. with the advice of seeking original cheque leaf. OP stated that the same was required for examination by a document examiner. OP understood that receiving the photocopy of the original cheque was gross mistake on their part for which they sent the instant e-mail dated 22.07.2016 to safeguard from the higher authority. The whole act exposed the manipulation of OP who in the name of investigation for the purpose of settling the claim received the photocopy of the disputed cheque leaf. Complainants’ father received another e-mail dated 25.07.2016 from OP for fixing a date of appointment for meeting with his higher authority to resolve the long pending issue and mention his two mobile nos. for having a talk in this regard. Complainants’ father was confused since the last meeting ended with no result. He smelt a new ploy of OP who had been demanding unofficial settlement on several occasion in the past. Complainants’ father neither contacted OP over phone nor did he meet him on experiencing the conduct of the OP in earlier occasions. On 06.08.2016, complainants’ father received an e-mail from Chief Manager (Vig), SBI, Kolkata to meet him on 08.08.2016 with documents to discuss the complaint so that it could be resolved at the earliest. Complainants’ father could not meet him on that date because of illness of his granddaughter. The inability to attend the meeting was telephonically informed to the CM, (Vig) SBI, Kolkata to avoid inconvenience to them. On 09.08.2016 complainants’ father received an e-mail from CM (Vig) to meet him with documents on 10.08.2016 to resolve the issue. The proposal of CM (Vig) was not found encouraging enough to complainants’ father to meet him. Accordingly, he requested to postpone the meeting in order to prepare response of the questions put to him by CM (Vig). Complainants’ father sent an e-mail dated 10.08.2016 to the DGM (Vig), SBI, LHO, Kolkata with its copy to CVO, SBI, Mumbai and the CM (Vig), SBI, Kolkata answering all the questions of the CM (Vig) SBI, Kolkata who had raised in his e-mail dated 06.08.2016. Since, complainants’ father was not responded with the name of an official to whom he would hand over the cheque leaf he sought confirmation through this mail from the DGM(Vig) SBI, Kolkata keeping informed through its copy to the CVO (Vig) SBI, Mumbai along with CM(Vig) SBI, Kolkata if handing over the disputed cheque to the OP, who agreed to receive the same through his mail dated 22.07.2016 would confirmed to the prescribed procedure and established protocol for question document to be examined by Government examiner lest it may become prone to tampering by vested interest in the organization concerned. Complainants’ father also made his stand clear through this mail that his meeting with CM (VIg) as proposed by him may turn out to be a meaningful only upon necessary clarification in this regard is received.
The CM (Vig) Kolkata assured complainants’ father vide mail dated 10.08.2016 at 07.00 p.m. assuring that there would a fair and judicious resolution of the fraud case lodged by him if he hand over the disputed cheque leaf to OP in his presence. Being tired of the situation since beginning complainants’ father accepted the proposal of the CM to hand over the disputed cheque leaf to OP under proper acknowledgment in his presence and fixed up a date on 12.08.2016 to hand over the cheque leaf to the OP in his presence.
On 12.08.2016 the cheque leaf in original was received by the OP under acknowledgement and witnessed by 3 in presence of Chief Manager (Vig), SBI, Kolkata. On 31.08.2016 complainants’ father died in Desun hospital, Kolkata -700107. The whole episode was nothing but a true story of mental agony, frustration, torture and physical harassment to the complainants’ father till his slept forever.
On 31.08.2016 Rs.48,500/- was credited but kept on hold. On 08.09.2016, death of complainants’ father was informed to the OP SBI, Kidderpore branch through letter. On the same day mother of the present complainants requested OP to remove the hold from the amount of Rs.48,500/- which was credited on 31.08.2016. But the Branch Manager told to the mother of the complainants to give an undertaking that the amount of Rs.48,500/- which was fraudulently withdrawn on 16.08.2014 was received by her before the hold be removed from the A/c. The mother of the complainants did not trust the OP and suspected some wrong in the said procedure. A notice with reference to Case No. 273 dated 30.09.2016 was received from the O/C Watgunge P.S. and on 14.10.2016 a response was submitted to the O/C Watgunge P.S. against the Case No. 273. On 07.11.2016 a letter was submitted to the OP requesting him to make the SB A/c operative but the OP told that the existing SB A/c could be made operative since the principal holder was dead though she might be a joint holder of the same A/c. OP advised her to open a new A/c after closing the existing early A/c. The said proposal was not like by the mother of the complainants. Complainants mother thereafter sent an email on 10.10.2017 to the GM, SBI Samriddhi Bhavan, Kolkata for compensation, interest and requested him to get the SB A/c bearing No. 11110117515 operative. But she did not get any response to the email sent to the GM, SBI, Kolkata. On 17.11.2017 she again submitted a letter to the new Branch Manager, SBI Kidderpore and requested him to make A/c operative. The said SB A/c was made operative.
On 24.11.2017 an email was sent to the OP for removal of hold from the amount of Rs.48,500/- which was credited on 31.08.2016 with hold. The OP asked to give him a few days to study the original complaint. After a week the OP told her to give in writing to have receipt the amount before the hold would be removed from it. It is the same proposal which was given one year ago. It was unjustified to put the amount on hold for such a long time depriving her from using the same. Considering the proposal of the OP as a ploy to get of acknowledgement of the said A/c so that the matter could not be approached to any Forum for compensation and interest on the said amount. On 28.12.2017 a complaint was lodged against the SBI Kidderpore branch with the banking Ombudsman, RBI, 15, NS Road, Kolkata so as to remove the hold on the amount of Rs.48,500/- and to get compensation and the said amount.
An email dated 09.01.2018 was received from banking ombudsman, RBI Kolkata intimating the number of complaint being the No.201718005005675. On 19.07.2018 an email was received from the ombudsman RBI, Kolkata that the hold was removed by the OP on 08.03.2018.
The banking ombudsman further stated that the loss suffered by the complainant and the amount of compensation against physical and mental harassment is not quantifiable the complaint is close u/s 11 (1) of BOS 2006 with a liberty to approach any other authority under law for redressal of the grievances.
On 29.10.2018 an application under RTI was submitted through RTI online portal to seek daily progress report of the complaint lodged by complainants’ father on 23.08.2014. A response was received on 26.11.2018. Another RTI application dated 06.12.2018 was submitted to know the mode by which the letter dated 28.08.2014 which was sent by the OP to complainants’ father to bring the original cheque, was dispatched. A response was received on 11.12.2018. OP has caused a great deal of mental agony and physical harassment like a torture to the complainants’ father a senior citizen aged 75 years till his death and afterwards it was complainants’ mother who had also suffered mental agony and harassment by the OP for delaying the removal of hold on the said SB A/c for a long time.
In view of the above, the complainants have approached the Commission for justice with relief as prayed for in the complaint petition.
The OP has contested the case by filing their W/V contending interalia that the complaint is bad in law and on facts and denies all the allegations leveled against them and submits as follows.
The original complainant Smt. Saraswati Devi died on 16.11.2020 after the filing of W/V by the OP. As such W/V has been filed addressing the original complainant Saraswati Devi
As per their submission Nimoo Lal Shah and the complainant had a joint S/B account with SBI, Kidderpore Branch, Kolkata. On 23.08.2014 Nimoo Lal Shah gave a written letter to the Bank to inoperate the joint account and accordingly the account was inactivated. The said letter was not signed by the complainant. The said Nimoo Lal Shah did not give any further letter to activate the account and the Bank as such could not activate the account. The present account holder or the survivor has no locus standi to agitate an issue after the death of the said accountholder as she herself never raised the issue during his lifetime. The fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.48500/- in 2014 was reimbursed in the year 2018 to the account inspite of pendency of police complaint. The complaint is barred by limitation as the incident held in the year 2014. It is denied that Vigilance Dept. SBI, Kolkata did not help him. Unofficial settlement was never proposed by the Bank Authority. The OP denies all allegations except those which are matter of record.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant?
2) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 3:-
All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
The fact of the case in brief is that the original complainant Saraswati Devi died on 16.11.2020 during the pendency of the instant Consumer Complaint. However, as per law his legal heirs Sri Mani Lal Shah, Sri Hiralal Shah and Smt. Purnima Rani Shaw being the sons and daughter of Late Saraswati Devi were substituted in her place and observed necessary formalities in the proceedings.
From the fact of the case it is observed that Nimoo Lal Shah during his lifetime had a joint SB A/C with his wife Saraswati Devi in the SBI, Kidderpore Branch, Kolkata and had become a victim of fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.48,500/- which had been detected on verifying the transaction dated 16.08.2014 in his passbook. On updating the pass book it was detected that Rs.48,500/- has been transferred to one unknown person named R. Singh vide cheque bearing No. 239057. But the surprising fact is that the cheque leaf bearing the same No. 239057 was with the A/c holder Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased). As a consequence, Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased) lodged a complaint on 23.08.2014 against the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.48,500/- with the SBI, Kidderpore Branch, Kolkata and advised the branch to make the A/c inoperative so as to protect from any further fraudulent withdrawal. Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased) lodged a grievance with the Additional Commissioner of Police (IV), Lalbazar Street, Kolkata on 26.08.2014. A copy of the grievance dated 26.08.2014 was also submitted to the Vigilance Department, SBI, Samriddhi Bhavan, Kolkata on 26.08.2014. The grievance was also lodged with the Watgunge P.S. on 03.09.2014. Due to non activation of the SB A/c after 10 months of lodging the complaint the RD A/c which was financed from the SB A/c on monthly basis closed prematurely on 01.07.2015 for which the A/C holder Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased) had to bear the financial loss for non payment of monthly installment in the RD A/c. Finding no light in the investigation of the Bank, Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased) lodged complaint through CPGRAMS under Government of India on 10.11.2015. Being not satisfied with the actions of the concerned OP Bank authorities Nimoo Lal lodged complaint to so many authorities vig. GM, SBI, Samriddhi Bhavan, CVO (Vig) SBI, Mumbai and to SBI Kidderpore on 24.06.2016. During this period he never received any solution nor any positive response from any of the authorities in respect of his complaint. Ultimately on 12.08.2016 the original cheque leaf bearing No. 239057 was received by the OP under acknowledgement and the amount got credited to the A/c of Nimoo Lal Shah on 31.08.2016 on the day when Nimoo Lal Shah expired. As per record the amount of Rs.48,500/- was fraudulently withdrawn on 16.08.2014 and the amount got credited to the A/c on 31.08.2016 with the instruction to keep the amount on hold. Being a senior citizen at the age of 75 Nimoo Lal Shah could not be able to know the reason why the said amount was fraudulently transferred to one unknown person named R. Singh on 16.08.2014 in spite of his untiring effort for the long period of two years to find out the truth behind.
From the submission of the OP in their WV, we do not find any cogent reason cited by the Bank for this fraudulent withdrawal and there has been no report submitted by the OP in the name of investigation, if at all, the so called investigation was taken place. As a custodian of the public money the Bank has got every responsibility to take care of the A/c holders’ money. They cannot escape themselves from this liability. The hard truth is that for no fault of the A/c holder Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased) the amount of Rs. 48,500/- was transferred out fraudulently from his account to one unknown person named as R Singh on 16.08.2014. The amount was transferred back to the account of Nimoo Lal Shah on 31.08.2016 with the instruction of hold. The hold was ultimately withdrawn by the Bank on 08.03.2018. The OP Bank cannot make the A/c holder wait for a long period of two years without giving any satisfactory reply to the old A/c holder who has suffered each and every day of the long period of two years with uncertainty, anxiety and apprehension of losing his hard earned money. Since the complaint of fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.48,500/- from the account of Nimoo Lal Shah has not been satisfactorily dealt with by the Bank and Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased) has not been made informed accordingly why the incident had happened during his life time. He ran from pillar to post to know the reason and to get back the amount with interest and compensation but the OP Bank did not bother to fulfill their obligation. Mere crediting the amount silently to the A/c of Nimoo Lal Shah (since deceased) by taking the original cheque leaf without proper explanation and without paying any interest thereon does not make the OP free from the allegations leveled against them. The issues as such were made open for adjudication. The plea of the OP for non maintainability of the complaint is as such over ruled.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case enumerated above we are of the considered opinion that the complainants have established the case against the OP Bank. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank are established
In the result, the consumer complaint succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with the following directions.
- The OP Bank is directed to pay interest @9% on Rs.48,500/- for the period from 16.08.2014 to 08.03.2018 to the S/B account No. 11110117515 of Nimoo Lal Shah Shah(since deceased) & Saraswati Devi (since deceased).
- The OP Bank is further directed to pay a sum of Rs1,00,000/- for compensation to the substituted complainants towards harassment and mental agony caused to the deceased account holders
- The OP Bank is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the substituted complainants towards litigation costs.
The above order is to be complied by the OP Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. In default, the complainants will be at liberty to put the order into execution.
Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.
