IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 39/S/2009 DATED : 08.09.2009.
BEFPRE PRESIDENT : SMT. ANITA DEBNATH,
Ex-Member of W.B. Higher Judicial Services and
Addl. Dist. & Session Judge,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARJEE.
COMPLAINANT : SRI UDAY ROY CHOWDHURY,
S/O Late Prafulla Roy Chowdhury,
Ambari, P.O.- Kamala Bagar,
P.S.- Phansidewa, Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.P. : BRANCH MANAGER,
S.B.I., Hansqua Branch,
P.O.- Tarbanda, Dist.- Darjeeling.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Self.
FOR THE OP : Sri Prasanta Joarder, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case for realization of refund of the amount as paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.32,960/- and for compensation.
The brief case of the complainant runs as follows :-
That the complainant is a consumer of State Bank of India, Hansqua Branch, P.O.- Tarbanda within Dist.- Darjeeling bearing his Saving Account No.30636815555. On 10.01.09 the complainant deposited an A/C payee cheque bearing No.810724 amounting to Rs.32,960/- drawn on S.B.I., Kolkata to his Savings Bank Account No. as stated above. Till date the aforesaid cheque amount has not been credited to the Savings Bank A/C of the complainant and no information was given to the complainant. In spite of visiting to the OP several times and requested to the official to credit the aforesaid amount to his A/C but no positive response or information was received from the OP.
Having no other alternative the complainant served a legal notice through his authorized lawyer requesting the OP to credit the said amount in his A/C in spite of
Contd…P/2
-:2:-
service of the said notice the OP did not take any appropriate action to credit the said amount to his Savings Account and in action on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency of service as he sustains loss. Hence, this case for proper relief.
The OP/Branch Manager, State Bank of India contested the case by putting W.V. denying each and every allegation as made therein with a specific defence that the A/C payee cheque bearing No.810724 dated 10.01.09 for Rs.32,960/- drawn on S.B.I., Chowrangee Branch, Kolkata was deposited in the Saving Bank A/C No. 30636815555 for collection from the Chowrangee Branch, Kolkata and the same was sent on 17.01.09 by the OP. In spite of repeated reminder over telephone and or by letter dated 18.02.09; 07.04.09; 02.05.09 and 03.06.09 no reply was received from the Chowrangee Branch. So, there is no negligence or deficiency in service or lapses or latches on the part of the OP with regard to the claim of the complainant. Subsequently, OP made payment of the said cheque amount to the complainant’s said account on 22.06.09 and also paid a sum of Rs.650/- toward interest for delayed period of the complainant and the same was duly credited in the A/C of the complainant.
The instant case has been filed with illegal gain as no negligence took place on their part and as such the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Written Version was filed supported by affidavit.
Upon considering the pleading of the respective parties the following points are to be determined for solve out the controversies involved in the instant case:-
- Is the case maintainable ?
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to get award as prayed for ?
- To what other relief/reliefs, if any?
Point No.1
This issue has not pressed by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP at the time of final hearing.
Admittedly, the complainant is an A/C holder with the OP/Bank. When the service by way of crediting the amount to the complainant’s A/C encashing the cheque through the OP and when admittedly it reveals that there was much delay in crediting such amount covered by the cheque in question the complainant comes within the purview of consumer as provided under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The nature of dispute also comes within the purview of consumer disputes as provided under the Section 2(1)(e) of the said Act. Therefore, the case is maintainable in law under the Act.
Contd…P/3
-:3:-
Point No.2 – 3.
The complainant has filed Xerox copy of Pay in Slip dated 10.01.09 to show that a sum of Rs.32,960/- under the cheque No.810724 of S.B.I., Kolkata Branch was deposited to State Bank of India, Hansqua Branch. Copy of the Statement of Account has also been submitted in support of the claim of the complainant to show that the said cheque amounting to Rs.32,960/- was deposited to the OP/SBI Branch on 19.01.09. it further reveals that the complainant by a letter dated 02.03.09 to the Branch Manager, Hansqua Branch wanted to know the fate of the said cheque as to whether it was credited or not in his A/C. The said letter was received on the self same date i.e. 02.03.09.
The OP/State Bank of India, Hansqua Branch by their letter dated 23.06.09 it has been intimated about the credit of the said amount on 22.06.09 to the Savings Bank A/C of the complainant.
The W.V. also speaks about the credit of the said amount on 22.06.09.
Admittedly, the complainant is a S.B. A/C holder being No.30636815555 with the OP/S.B.I. Branch. Admittedly, the complainant deposited an A/C payee cheque of Rs.32,960/- to the OP/Bank for encashing of the said cheque by way of crediting the same in his A/C. Admittedly, the said amount was not credited before 22.06.09 and it was credited only on 22.06.09 with delayed interest. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP canvassed much that originally the said cheque was deposited for encashment through their branch relating to a service branch of Chowrangee. Despite repeated request to the Service Branch, S.B.I., Chowrangee, Kolkata by letter dated 18.02.09; 03.04.09; 02.05.09 and 03.06.09 no response was received from the service Branch, Chowrangee for which they have no direct role for causing such delay and what ever such delay as caused was on the part of the service Branch only. Ultimately, on production of a Statement of A/C it has been shown that the cheque was deposited to their branch on 19.01.09 for encashment and the said amount was credited on 22.06.09 amounting to Rs.34,453/- which includes interest amount of Rs.650/-towards delayed payment. On the contrary the complainant personally submitted that he is a small trader. The cheque in question was deposited on 10.01.09 to the OP/Bank and on the basis of the said amount he incurred the sum towards his Pvt. Business which his sole earning of his livelihood. Cause of making payment only on 22.06.09 after lapse of more than six months he has suffered a financial loss as well as it also caused hampers for smooth running of livelihood.
The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP also advanced argument that when delayed payment by way of making interest was paid no other compensation would lie. In support of his contention he has relied a decision reported in 2007 CPJ Vol.-I 227 (N.C.) and 2007 CPJ Vol.II 95 (N.C.). When the cheque amount in question was credited to the
Contd…P/4
-:4:-
complainant Savings A/C now the question of refund of the said money does not arise. But fact remains admittedly there was a delayed payment.
The question is whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation for such delayed payment as sought for?
We have gone through the decision as relied by the OP and also considered the case of the complainant.
Admittedly, a sum of Rs.650/- was credited towards the Savings Bank A/C of the complainant towards interest for the delayed payment on Rs.32,960/-. The complainant after deposited of the said cheque to the OP/Hansqua Branch requested by his letter dated 02.03.09 about the crediting of the said amount to his Savings Bank A/C. but curious enough after receiving the said letter the OP did not care for making any reply to the complainant to remove the anxiety as faced by the complainant for non-receiving of a huge amount covered by the cheque in question. This sought of in action on the part of the OP obviously amounts to deficiency of service towards their customers. This sought of service from a public utility service like the renowned bank of S.B.I. is not at all expected. It may be that the said cheque was deposited for collection through their service Branch, Chowrangee, Kolkata. But Core Banking Service System has already been started through the SBI Branch. But it is not the defence case that such type of facility Core Banking system has not yet been started in their Branch. If assuming for argument shakes that such type of facility in the S.B.I. Bank has not yet been started it is to be looked into that a cheque would be encashed or collection through the service Branch of Chowrangee Branch, Kolkata for about six months. Xerox copy of the Pay in Slip goes to show that the said cheque was deposited on 10.01.09 in the Savings Bank of the complainant. But it was entered in their ledger on 19.01.09 showing the date of collection of the said cheque. From Annexure –I as filed by the OP No.1 it reveals that the said cheque was sent on 19.01.09 to S.B.I., Chowrangee Branch, Kolkata for encashment. The deposit was made to the present OP for crediting the amount to the Savings Bank of the complainant through their Service Branch, Chowrangee. It is evident that after receiving the letter of request from the complainant they did not pay any heed informing the complainant about the fate of the said cheque. This is nothing but a negligence and deficiency in service as provided under Section 2(1)(g) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the part of the SBI Bank on its Hansqua Branch. What prevented them to give any reply against any query as made by the complainant.
In the case of Modern Woolen’s reported in 2007 Vol.-I CPJ 227 (N.C.) Hon’ble National Commission held as far as deficiency on the part of the Bank is concerned the
Contd…P/5
-:5:-
compensation could have been either in the form of a lump sum amount or by way of interest.
It is evident that the complainant did not receive any information from the part of the OP bank till the date of institution of the instant case. Even after service of legal notice they have not bothered to remove the mental agony of the complainant by making any reply to satisfy the complainant about the fate of the cheque. This sought of inaction which we have already held that deficiency of service under the law should not be lightly dealt with and by way of only making payment of interest the mental sufferings as faced by the complainant can not go and it amounts that the each and every consumer would not get any relief unless by filing a case before the court of law or appropriate Forum insisting the consumers/the account holder to take the last resort for getting relief. The Bank is a Public Utility Service run by the public money equipped with scientific infrastructure even then they did care for to provide proper service to its customers.
Under these facts and circumstances, it is fit and proper to impose a lump sum amount of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for the mental pain and agony and anxiety as faced by the complainant due to the inaction on the OP branch even if due to latches on the part of the S.B.I. whatever its Branch so that such type of inaction may not occur in future.
Since the amount has already been credited in the Savings Account of the complainant, the prayer for refund of money does not lie.
Thus, the issues are decided in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.39/S/2009 is allowed on contest in part with cost of Rs.500/-.
The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.1,000/- from the OP/Bank.
The OP/State Bank of India, Hansqua Branch is directed to pay the said amount of Rs.1,000/- together with cost to the complainant within one month from the date hereof failing which the amount shall carry interest of Rs.9% p.a. from the date of institution of the instant case i.e. 14.05.09 till realization of the said sum.
In case of default the complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution.
Let Xerox copies of this Judgement and Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
