IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/135/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
24.08.17 05.09.17 29.05.19
Complainant: Angura Begum
w/o Md. Abul Hayat
Vill – Mahammadpur, P.O. Jangipur,
P.S. Raghunathganj, Dist Murshidabad.
PIN 742213.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager
State Bank of India (Jangipur Town Branch)
Branch Code-13444
PO-Jangipur
PS-Raghunathganj
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742213
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : In Person.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Satinath Chandra.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Angura Begum (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jangipore Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is a senior citizen and she has a savings bank account with the OP Bank. The Complainant for the first time came to know that her term deposit in connection with account No.32067932950 amounting Rs.10,000/- in the names of Nusrin Begum and the Complainant was closed when Nusrin Begum submitted form 15G on 04.04.16. The date of maturity of the fixed deposit was on 03.07.19 and the holders of the term deposit Nusrin Begum and Angura Begum had not filed any application for pre-mature withdrawal of the term deposit. Moreover, Rs.1000/- was shown withdrawn on02.11.16 in spite of the fact that no ATM withdrawal was made on that day.The matter was reported to the Branch Manager SBI, Jangipore Town in writing and sent letter by registered post with AD on 29.12.17 and copy of the same was forwarded to the SDO, Jangipore for refund of the matured amount on Rs.10,000/- but of no result. The Complainant suffered a loss of about Rs.10,000/-. He also pray for Rs.70,000/- for her physical trouble and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the OP. The OP contested the case by filing written version on 22.12.17 contending that the case is not maintainable as it is barred by law of limitation and the allegations against the Complainant for non withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- through ATM from SB Account No.31225531516 is not correct. It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant and her daughter Nusrin Begum had a term deposit TDA of Rs.10,000/- vide account No.320679322950 which was opened on 03.12.11 and the maturity date was fixed on 03.07.19. Thereafter, the account was closed on the basis of the instruction of Nasrin Begum and Angura Begum and the entire pre-mature fund ha been transferred to SB Account No.31225531516 and a TDA was opened vide No.33620955735. Accordingly, it had been correctly mentioned at the time of submission of 15G form that the account was closed. It is also the case of the OP that the four digit pin No. is only in the knowledge of the ATM card holder and the ATM card should also under the custody of the card holder. So, there cannot be any misuse or misappropriation of the card by the OP Bank. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The OP has no deficiency in service.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration. The Ld Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a Consumer.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
We have gone through the written complaint, evidence of the Complainant, documents filed by both sides and written argument filed by the OP. Admittedly, the Complainant and her daughter Nasrin Begum had a TDA vide No. 32067932950 amounting Rs.10,000/- and the date of maturity was on 03.07.19. It is the version of the OP that the said TDA was closed as per instruction of the TDA holders that the Complainant has alleged that she never put any signature for pre-mature withdrawal of TDA. The OP has filed Annexure 1 (Xerox Copy of Computerised TDA No. 32067932950) from which it appears that the account was closed.
It appears from the Annexure 2 (Statement of accounts of S/B Account No. 31225531516 SBI, Jangipore Town ) in the name of Nusrin Begum and Angura Begum that an amount of Rs.12,052/- was credited on 29.01.14 being amount of TDA account No. 32067932950 and one new TDA No. 0033620955735 amounting Rsz.10,000/- was opened on that day.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Nusrin Begum was the first holder of the TDA being No.0032067932950 and Angura Begum was the second holder of that TDA but Angura Begum was the first holder of TDA No.0033620955735 and Nasrin Begum was the second holder for obtaining interest benefit of .5% more per annum as senior citizen. It has been asserted that the manual TDA was with the Nasrin Begum and the Complainant but the computer generated TDA was issued in lieu of the manual TDA. The OP was directed to file the original TDA to establish that both the holders of TDA No. 32067932950 put their signatures for pre mature closure of the account but the OP has failed to file the said document on the plea that the closed TDA dated 29.01.14 could not be traced .
According to the Complainant, the Complainant came to know the fact of closure of the fixed deposit amount for the first time when her daughter filed 15G form on 04.04.16. It is clear from the statement of account filed by the OP that the amount due to pre-mature closure of the term deposit was credited to the savings bank account of Nasrin Begum and Angura Begum on 29.01.14 vide account No. 31225531516. It is also clear from the statement of account that a new TDA was opened in the name of Angura Begum and Nasrin Begum on 29.01.14 amounting Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, it is not believable that the Complainant was not aware of the fact that it was not within her knowledge that the TDA was closed and the amount was credited to the joint account of Nusrin Begum and Angura Begum. But the OP has failed to produce the original TDA certificate being No. 32067932950 to establish that both Nasrin Begum and Angura Begum put their signatures for pre mature closure of the TDA. In case of pre mature closure of TDA all the holders are to put their signatures but it is the specific case of the Complainant that she never put her signature for pre mature closure of the TDA being No. 32067932950. The complainant has failed to establish that no amount was withdrawn on 02.11.16 by using ATM card.
We think that the OP has deficiency in service as he failed to produce the original TDA to establish that both the holders of TDA put their signatures for pre mature closure of TDA. It is not correct that the Complainant is entitled to get the matured value of TDA No. 32067932950.
Considering facts and circumstances we think that the OP has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,000/-.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 24.08.17 and admitted on 05.09.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/135/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest against the OP without cost.
The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service by 60 (Sixty) days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
