IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/97/2017
Date of Filing: 23.06.17 Date of Final Order: 27.12.18
Complainant: Namita Banerjee (Mishra)
W/O Debasish Banerjee
Vill+PO-Jafarganj
PS-Farakka
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742202
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager/Chief Manager
State Bank of India.
Jangipore Branch
PO+PS-Raghunathganj
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742225
2. Regional Manager, S.B.I
Murshidabad Region,
R.N.Tagore Road,
PO+PS-Berhampore
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101
3. Branch Manager,
United Bank of India
Beniagram Branch
Vill+PO-Beniagram
PS-Farakka
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742212
4. Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Cash)
Employees Provident Fund Organization
Sub-Regional Office, Jangipore via-Barala
PO-Ghorsala
PS-Raghunathganj
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742225
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Siddhartha Gupta
Agent/Advocate for the O.P. Nos 1&2 :. Sri. Satinath Chandra
Agent/Advocate for the O.P.No.4 :. Sri. Ramesh Tirkey
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 Namita Banerjee (Mishra) (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jangipore Branch & three Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The brief fact of the complaint case is as follows:
The Complainant is a Biri worker and she has an account in the United Bank of India, Beniagram Branch vide savings account No. 1227010274852. She is a member of Employees’ provident Fund Organization and her Provident Fund Account No. is 29730/24194. The Complainant filed an application to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-regional Office, Jangipore and the OP No.4 granted her prayer by issuing two cheques being No. 689881 and 696787 dated 18.12.13 amounting Rs.3052/- and Rs.6440/- respectively. The Complainant deposited the said two cheques in her Bank but as the amount was not encashed, she informed the matter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by a letter dated 28.07.15 but the issue was not resolved. The OP No.4 issued a letter dated 17.05.16 to the Chief Manager, SBI Jangipore Branch requested him to look into the matter and the OP No.1 informed that the amount had already been debited in the account of the OP No.4 but the said amount has not yet been credited in the account of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant has filed this
case praying for re-issuance of two cheques amounting Rs.6440/- and Rs.3052/- with interest and compensation of Rs.40,000/-.
The OP No.1 and 2 contested the case by filing written version on 24.10.17, contending, that the complaint is not maintainable and the Complainant is not a consumer. The OP No.4 issued a cheque in favor of the OP No.1 for payment of a total sum i.e. the claimed amount of so many members with details of those members such as name of Bankers, IFSC, individual account etc. to transfer the amount through NEFT to the members. The Complainant informed the OP No.4 about non-payment of his claim amount on 21.09.16 and the OP No.1 tried to trace out the reason of non-payment and came to know that the fund in respect of the claim of the Complainant had not been transferred or credited into her account with UBI as the OP No.4 prepared the detailed list where the account No., IFSC and other details of the Complainants had been mentioned erroneously. So the OP No.1 was unable to arrange for crediting the amount into the account of the Complainant. The OPs informed the fact to the OP No.4 by issuing a letter dated 27.07.17. Ultimately the OP No.1 credited the sum of Rs.6440/- and Rs.3052/- to the respective account of the E.P.F.O., Jangipore on 05.08.17 and intimated the fact by issuing a letter. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and OP No.2. The OP No.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No.4 contested the case by filing written version on 23.08.18, contending, that the Complainant applied for withdrawal of Provident Fund and compensation fund accumulation on 12.12.13 and the same had been settled on 18.12.13 and two cheques bearing Nos. 696787 and 689881 both dated 20.12.13 for Rs.6440/- and Rs.3052/- respectively had been forwarded to the Banker of the Complainant for crediting the same into the account of the Complainant.
The Complainant sent a letter dated 18.04.16 to the OP No.4 alleging non-receipt of money in her bank account. Based upon the grievances of the Complainant, the OP No.4 issued letters to the OP No.1 vide letters dated 17.05.16, 27.12.16, 12.04.17 and 28.07.17 regarding status of NEFT payment. The OP No.1 had finally intimated the status of NEFT payment vide letter No. BR/Gen/59/361 dated 05.08.17 that amount of Rs.6440/- and Rs.3052/- had been credited back into E.P.F.O. account. Accordingly the OP No.4 intimated the Complainant to re-submit the claim form 19 and 10C vide his office letter dated 29.08.17. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4.
The OP No.3 did not contest the case in spite of service of notice.
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 OPs, 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 he hired the services of the OP No.1 and OP No.4.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 and OP No.2 submits that the OP No.2 is an unnecessary party and the Complainant is not a consumer.
The representative of OP No.4 has submitted nothing on this point.
Having gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and xerox copies of the documents submitted by both parties,we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act,1986.
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
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant has suffered much for non-crediting the amount of Rs.6440/- and Rs.3052/- and she is entitled to get the amount with interest. It is argued that the Complainant ventilated her grievances again and again but the OP No.4 did not pay any heed to resolve the issue for a long time. It is contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and 4. He prays for compensation against the OP No.1 and OP No.4.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 and OP No.2 submits that the OP No.4 issued cheques in favour of the OP No.1 for disbursing the amount to a number of members of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and the amount could not be disbursed to the account of the Complainant as there was error in special character supplied by the OP No.4. It is further argued that the OP No.1 has no deficiency in service and the OP No.1 refunded the amount to the account of the OP No.4 as soon as the matter was detected. It is further argued that the OP No.2 is an unnecessary party as there is no cause of action against the OP No.2. He prays for dismissal of the complaint without cost against the OP No.1 and OP No.2.
The Agent of the OP No.4 submits that the OP No.4 has no deficiency in service as the O.P. no.4 settled the claim of the Complainant within 7 days in 2013 by issuing two cheques. It is argued that the Complainant informed about non-crediting of the amount in her bank account on 18.04.16 and the OP No.4 requested the OP No.1 to let him know the reason for non-disbursement of the amount vide letters dated 17.05.16, 27.12.16, 12.04.17 and 28.07.17 and ultimately, the OP No.1 informed the OP No.4 that the amount could not be disbursed due to mentioning of wrong characters in respect of the Complainant and the amount had been credited back into the E.P.F.O. account. He argues that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP No. 4. It is argued that the Complainant has been advised to re-submit claim form 19 and 10C and the OP No.4 will release the amount after observing necessary formalities.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence and xerox copies of documents submitted by both parties. We have also considered the submission of both parties. Admittedly, the Complainant is a member of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and she has a provident fund account being No. 29730/24194. Admittedly the OP No.4 disposed of the application of the Complainant on 18.12.13 by releasing the amount of Rs.6440/- and Rs.3052/-. It is clear from the submission of both sides that the OP No.4 issued cheque in the name of the OP No.1 with mandate for disbursing the amount to the accounts of a number of members of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization but the amount against the name of the Complainant could not be credited in the account of the Complainant as there was wrong entry of special characters supplied by the OP No.4. The Complainant intimated the fact of non-crediting the amount in her bank account to the OP No.4 and the OP No.4 issued letters to the OP No.1 for resolving the issue. The OP No.4 has not taken initiative to send someone to the office of the OP No.1 to know the reason for non-disbursement of the amount in the account of the Complainant and the OP No.1 was also silent for a long time. The OP No.1 did not inform the OP No.4 within a reasonable time about non-disbursement of the amount to the account of the Complainant and the reason for non-disbursement. If either the OP No.1 or the OP No.4 was vigil to resolve the issue of non-disbursement of the amount to the account of the Complainant, the problem of the Complainant might be resolved within a short period. The OP No.4 did not take any initiative to resolve the issue immediately after receipt of the complaint from the Complainant and the OP No.1 also did not inform the OP No.4 about non-disbursement of the amount to the account of the Complainant before receiving a number of correspondences from the OP No.4. It was the duty and obligation of the OP No. 1 to inform the fact of non-disbursement of any amount to the person who issued the cheque with a mandate for disbursement of the amount, specially when the amount was un-disbursed due to some reason. Therefore, we are of the view that both the OP No.1 and OP No.4 have deficiency in service causing harassment and mental agony to the Complainant. We think that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation against the OP No.1 and 4. We find that the O.P. Nos 2 and 3 are unnecessary parties.
The OP No.1 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 45 days. The OP No. 4 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 45 days. The Complainant is at liberty to re-submit the claim form 19 and 10C if she so desires and the OP No.4 may be directed to dispose of the claim of the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the Claim Form.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 23.06.17 and admitted on 07.07.17. 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.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/97/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 1&4 without cost and dismissed against the rest without cost.
The OP No.1 be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 45 days. The OP No. 4 be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within a period of 45 days. The Complainant is at liberty to re-submit the claim form 19 and 10C, if she so desires and the OP No.4 is directed to dispose of the claim of the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the Claim Form.
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.
