Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh.........President.

The Complainant has filed the case against the O.P and praying for the following order/relief under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act: I) Praying for acceptance of this complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. II) Praying for direction against the OP to provide rule/order in support of the denial to encash the other branch’s cheque. III) Praying for direction against the OP to provide information as wanted under the Right to Information Act. IV) Praying for direction against the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing loss of prestige, dignity, in presence of the other customers, physical harassment, willfully creation of mental agony as well as tension, cost for correspondence charges, Any other relief/ reliefs. BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT 1) That, the complainant is a Retired Government Employee having Pension Account in the Siliguri Feeder Road Branch of SBI and as per direction of the Treasury Officer of the Siliguri II, the complainant is not using ATM Card for cash withdrawal from his account. 2) That, on 17.06.2017, at about 11:35 Hrs, he went to the OP Branch to withdraw money for his urgent need as his younger daughter who is a student of Vellore Institute of Technology, a sum of money needs for medical treatment of his daughter and that’s why he went to the OP for withdrawal of money. 3) That, the Officer-in-charge of token machine initially denied to issue the token to him as he was account holder of other branch but on his protest he advised to meet with the Service Manager who was sited in the cash counter row, he also initially refused to give the token and on being asked by the complainant the reason for refusal he advised the complainant to produce the identity card, the complainant submitted a Xerox copy of medical card having issue number with photographs by the State Government/ then the in-charge of token machine issued the token bearing no. NC 37. 4) That, after obtaining the token the complainant went to the Counter No. 4 where a lady staff of the counter after taking the token along with Xerox copy of the Identity card, returned the Xerox copy of identity card and destroyed the token by saying that, the same was not valid and advised the complainant to bring another Xerox copy of any other identity card along with a fresh token/ the complainant asked her whether the driving license will be accepted or not, then she asked the complainant to meet with another Service Manager who was seated in the basement. 5) That, the Service Manager of the basement told the complainant with rough voice stating that, they will not pay sum of money of the other branch and asked him to go to the Station Feeder Road Branch of SBI and no money was given to the complainant. Then the complainant requested the Manager to pay the amount as the same was in urgent need on medical ground but he behaves roughly and the complainant was compelled to leave the branch in presence of 35/40 customers. 6) That, as per print in the cheque of SBI, any account holder can withdraw cash from any branch of SBI, and the printed instruction is “MULTI CITI CHEQUE Payable At Par At All Branch of SBI”. 7) That, there was a gross violation of the instruction of the Government by some subordinate officers of the bank / with malicious intention to harass the customer/ not to give proper service to a bonafide account holder or customer/ to avoid official duty or unwillingness to perform job properly. 8) That, due to the act of the staffs of the OP Bank, in presence of large number of branch customers the complainant lost its prestige and dignity and was compelled to go to Station Feeder Road Branch of SBI for withdrawal of money though the said branch is situated at a distance of 2.2 Km. 9) That, the complainant asked the authority to preserve the memory of the token machine and the CCTV footage from 11:35 AM to 01:00 PM which are documentary and electronic evidence. 10) That, on 04.10.2017 the complainant requested the CPIO and Assistant General Manager of SBI, Zonal Office, Siliguri I under the provision of RTI Act, to provide information to lodge the case against the bank employees but the same was denied to supply answers. 11) That, the complainant applied to the General Manager, SBI, Local Head Office, Kolkata as Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, but he also denied to supply the information in the same manner. 12) That, the cause of action arose on 17.06.2017 and 08.02.2018 after the denial to provide the information by the Assistant General Manager, Appellate Authority, which is continuing. To prove the case the Complainant has filed the following documents:- i) Complain regarding refusal by the Desk Manager and receipt of postal document. (Annexure- 1). ii) Complain regarding refusal by the Desk Manager and receipt of postal document. (Annexure- 2). iii) Request to provide information under R.T.I Act dated 07.10.2017 (Annexure-3). iv) Answer of CPIO & AGM of SBI Siliguri. ( Annexure- 4) v) Answer of AGM Customer Care Cell Local Head Office- Kolkata (Annexure- 5). Notice was issued from this Commission which was duly served upon the OP. On receipt of notice the OP appears before this Commission through Vokalatnama, filed W/V, denied all the material allegation of the complainant. The OP has stated in the W/V that the complaint is not maintainable in law and facts/ the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against the OP / the complaint is not maintainable for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties/ the complainant has claimed relief which is beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant is not a consumer of the OP / the complainant has filed this case unnecessarily to harass the OP to derive undue advantage as well as unlawful gain from the OP. The OP has further stated that the statement made in Para No. 1 to 3 of the complaint are matter of record, Para No. 4 and 5 are false, Para No. 6 and 7 are not correct. The OP has further stated that, one token was issued to the complainant on 17.06.2017, when the staff of the bank found that the signature of the drawer of the said cheque did not match with the specimen signature kept with the bank and then the bank staff requested the complainant to produce any ID proof, where upon he presented a photocopy of ID which did not bear his signature and at that point the said staff member of the bank asked the complainant to go to the Service Manager and the complainant approached the Service Manager by expressing his grievance / the Service Manager listen to him patiently and the complainant produced the cheque to the service manager who compared the signature and found that, the signature mismatched and the service manager stated to him that, the signature appeared to mismatch and requested him to go to the Branch where his account lies and possibly they could help him. The OP has further stated that, the complainant thereafter raised hue and cry disturbing the banking business and environment and on request of the other customers the complainant left the branch. The OP has further stated in the W/V that the contents of the Para No. 8 of the complaint is partially correct and statements of Para No. 9, 10 are false, fabricated, statements of Para No. 11 to 13 are matter of record, and statements of Para No. 14 to 17 are totally false and denied by the OP. By filing the W/V the OP praying for dismissal of this case. Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the written complaint, written version and documents filed by the parties the following points are to be considered by this Commission. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 1) Whether the Complainants is a consumer? 2) Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act? 3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Principal O.Ps. as alleged by the Complainants? 4) Is the Complainants are entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of their Complaint? DECISION WITH REASONS All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case. The complainant was given opportunity to prove its own case by producing evidence. To prove the case the complainant has filed written deposition in the form of an affidavit. In the written deposition, the complainant has stated/ corroborated the contents of the complaint. The complainant himself in his evidence has stated on which day he visited in the Branch of the OP for encashment of a cheque but the cheque was not honored by making payment to the complainant. At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Advocate of the complainant submits that, they have already filed written argument where they specifically stated, how the complainant was harassed by the staff of the OP Bank. He also argued that the complainant has been able to prove the case to the effect that, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP who deliberately make no payment in respect of a cheque which was presented in the bank of the OP. He further argued that, on being asked by the staff of the OP Bank the complainant was able to prove himself by producing valid documents issued from the Government Authority but the staff of the OP Bank ignoring those Identity card compelled the complainant to leave the branch. Ld. Advocate of the complainant further argued that, not only by filing the written evidence but also by filing several documents the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP. To falsify the case of the complainant, the OP has filed written evidence in the form of an affidavit. In the written evidence the OP has specifically stated that, only to harass the OP Bank the complainant has filed this case on some false allegation, knowing fully well aware that, he is not a consumer under the OP and basic ingredients of Consumer under the definition of consumer is lacking in this case. Ld. Advocate of the OP during argument has stated that, they have filed written argument to falsify the case of the complainant and also stated that, the complainant is not a customer of the OP and he admits that, he is a customer of the Station Feeder Road Branch of SBI. It is further argued on the side of the OP that, the complainant has filed this case which is bad for non joinder as well as mis joinder of parties and the relief which the complainant claims from this Commission is beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant never denied the contention of written version in any way through evidence which admits the written version of the OP and that’s why it was not disputed by the complainant. Ld. Advocate of the OP praying for dismissal of the case. Having heard Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of evidence of the parties as well as written complaint, written version, including the documents filed by the complainant it is admitted fact that, the complainant went to the OP Bank for encashment of a cheque issued by the complainant. It is also admitted fact by both the parties that, the complainant is not a customer/ account holder of the OP bank. It is further admitted fact that, the complainant is a customer of SBI, Station Feeder Road Branch Siliguri. It is not disputed by the OP that, the complainant presented one cheque before the OP Bank for encashment. But the complainant neither at the time of filing complaint, nor when he filed written evidence filed the cheque in question before this Commission which was allegedly presented before the staff of the OP Bank for encashment. The complainant has also not challenged the written version of the OP or the written evidence of the OP by producing further documents or by putting questionnaires against the evidence of the OP which clearly presumed that the evidence of the OP has not been challenged by the complainant through cross examination. The OP in his written evidence has stated that, “when the complainant went to the OP Bank for encashment of a cheque the concerned staff member found that the signature of the complainant on the said cheque did not match with the specimen signature kept with the bank system and then he was asked to submit his identity card to prove his identity but he produced one Xerox copy of identity card which does not bear the signature of the complainant” that evidence of the OP has not been challenged by the complainant either through cross examination of the OP by day of put up questionnaires or by producing documents before this Commission. Accordingly it can be safely presumed that, the Xerox copy of identity card which he gave does not have signature. It is also evidence on record that, the OP in his written evidence has specifically stated that, the staff of the bank asked the complainant to approach the Service Manager to express his grievance, which was duly listened by the Service Manager and when he compared the signature of the complainant he found the signature of the complainant was mismatched then the Service Manager told the complainant to go to the Branch where the account of the complainant lies. That evidence of the OP has not been challenged on the side of the complainant either through cross examination or through counter affidavit before this Commission or through putting questionnaires against the evidence of the OP. From the evidence of the complainant it is also found that, the complainant has not challenged the contents of the written version of the OP and the complainant did not explain in his written evidence by explaining/challenging the statements so made in the W/V filed by the OP. From the record it further reveals that, the complainant in his complaint as well as written evidence has specifically stated that, the cheque in question was lastly presented before the mother branch (Station Feeder Road Branch of SBI) which was encashed therefrom. But in the instant case the complainant did not implead the said Feeder Road Branch of SBI as a OP or proforma OP though he is a necessary as well as proper party and in order to arrived at a just decision of this case that Station Feeder Road Branch of SBI was a necessary party and absence of that, Station Feder Road Branch of SBI is like a person having no leg to stand. In the written complaint as well as evidence of the complainant, the complainant neither stated the cheque number nor other particulars which also creates a strong doubt about the issuance of cheque as well as presentation of the same before the OP for encashment and the complainant has failed to explain as to what prevented him from disclosing the cheque number as well as particulars of the cheque before this Commission. Considering all, we are of the view that, the complainant has not been able to prove this case to the effect that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP towards the complainant.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D,

That the instant consumer case being no. 108/2018 is hereby dismissed on contest. Let a copy of this final order be given to both the parties free of cost.