Complaint filed on: 27-06-2017 Disposed on: 09-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.62/2017
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.Anantha Padmanabhaswamy.H,
S/o. Late Ganeshaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at Hulisandra, Banasandra post,
Turuvekere taluk,
Tumakauru District
(By Advocate Sri.G.Sreepathi)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
- The Chief Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
(Presently State Bank of India)
KG Road, Bengaluru – 01
- The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
(Presently State Bank of India)
Branch No.40105,Branch No.117,
Mysuru-C.Durga road,
Banasandra
(By Advocate Sri.T.H.Venkatesh)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to pay damages of 40,000=00 and Rs.25,000=00 towards loss and Rs.20,000=00 towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.1,000=00 and credit an amount of Rs.5,220=00 to the complainant, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant is having two accounts in the 2nd OP bank, out of which, one is SB account bearing No.64091623954 and another account is BRKCC short term crop loan account bearing 64054977384. The complainant used to make all his transactions through his SB account only.
The complainant further submitted that, on 21-3-2017 the complainant was having balance amount of Rs.5,220=00 in his account. The Bank Manager of the 2nd OP has transferred the entire amount from the complainant’s SB account to his BRKCC Short Term Crop Loan account as one time settlement and showed Rs.2,255-54 as credit balance in loan account No.64054977384 by this act of the 2nd OP, the complainant has lost amount of subsidy came from Government in respect of drought relief and the same was returned back to government. The Bank Manager of 2nd OP has closed the complainant’s SB account and taken entire balance amount to his loan account and showed zero balance in his SB account without any prior intimation to the complainant.
The complainant further submitted that, the complainant is a poor agriculturist and taken loan from the 2nd OP bank for agricultural purpose. Due to bad climatic conditions, the complainant has delayed to make the payment of small amount of loan. The Bank Manager of 2nd OP has exercised his right according to his own whims and fancies without knowing the baking rules. Due to negligent act of the Bank Manager of 2nd OP, the complainant has faced deficiency in service and mental agony. The complainant has not made any transaction through his SB account for which the 2nd OP Bank Manager is solely liable.
The complainant further submitted that, on 10-5-2017 the complainant has sent a legal notice to the OPs through RPAD and the said notice was served on the OPs, but they did not reply to the said notice. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint.
3. After service of notice, the OPs have appeared through their counsel and filed common written version, contending interalia as under:
The averments made in the para 2 of the complaint are correct and para 3 and 4 of the complaint are partly correct. The complainant is having the balance of Rs.5220=00 as on 21-3-2017 in his SB account. The 2nd OP has transferred the same to his crop loan account and showed nil balance in the SB account. It is submitted by the OP that, this is the common procedure in banks and the bank is having the “right to set off” the loans from various sources of the accounts of the borrower as per the banking rules and regulations and as per the directives of the RBI. If the OP bank does not utilize the right to set off, then the account may be erroneously closed and the amount was transferred to the borrower/complainant’s loan account. The OPs further submitted that, due to the lengthy procedure of merger of State Bank of Mysore including other Banks with State Bank of India and also updating its software the mistake has occurred. Meanwhile, the OP bank has tried to open the account, but as per the SBI circular, account can be opened at the request of the customer, but the complainant has never gave any request toward to the OP bank and the OP bank has taken the initiative and got it opened by obtaining necessary authorization from the concerned DGM (B&O) for opening the account. The said SB account is opened on 24-7-2017 and the said amount of Rs.5220 is also reversed as per the account extract from 1-1-2017 to 7-8-2017. It is submitted that, this is not intentional and there are all the common facts in the banking industry and only the cooperation of the customer is required in these circumstances.
The OPs further submitted that, it is false to say that, because of zero balance in SB account and closure of the account, the subsidy amount was not credited to the SB account and went back. The procedure is that, the OP bank only claim the subsidy amount from the concerned government yearly and transfer the same to the respective accounts. Without the knowledge of the OP bank, the subsidy will not come and go back, even if the subsidy comes by the time of closure of account, the subsidy amount will come to the OP bank through DD and the same will be released on the basis of linked Aadhar card. In this circumstances, the complainant was not faced any problems since the closure of the SB account. The complainant is filed with a view to obtain wrongful gain from the OP bank. Due to merger of SBM and SBI and work pressure, the OP bank has not replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant, which is not intentional.
The OPs further submitted that, there is no cause of action for the complainant and the alleged cause of action is invented for the purpose of filing false complaint. There is no any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank and the OP bank has no intension to cause any hardship or inconvenience to the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents which were marked as Ex-C1 to C7 and the OPs have produced documents which were marked as Ex-R1 to R3. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the case for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the affirmative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. On perusal of the documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact, the 2nd OP had transferred the entire amount from the complainant’s SB account No.64091623954 to the Crop Loan account No.064054977384 of the complainant and showed zero balance in the SB account of the complainant.
8. The main allegations of the complainant is that, the above said transaction was done by the 2nd OP without taking consent from the complainant and closed the SB account of the complainant unilaterally. This act of the 2nd OP amounts to deficiency in service. Due to this act of the 2nd OP, the subsidy amount of the crop loan was not debited to the SB account and Gas subsidy was returned to the government. The complainant has produced mobile SMS copy, it reads as follows: “Transfer of LPG subsidy Rs.95.00 failed. Check your Aadhar linking status on WWW.myLPG.in or Dial *99*99# and contact your bank/distributor for correction”. As per the complainant contention, as there were no SB account to link the Aadhar Card.
9. Per contra, the OPs submitted that, the bank has right to set off the loans from various sources of the accounts of the borrower as per the Banking Rules and Regulations and as per the directions of the RBI. In this regard, the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence before the forum. Hence, the contention of the OPs cannot be accepted without any documentary evidence. The OPs further submitted that, the complainant’s account was closed due to updating its software and due to merger of various banks with the State Bank of India.
10. Admittedly, based on the facts and circumstances of the case of the complainant, the 2nd OP had transferred the amount of Rs.5,220=00 from the complainant’s SB account No.64091623954 to the Crop loan account No.64054977384 of the complainant. As a result of which no balance was in the SB account of the complainant and subsidy amount was not debited to the SB account of the complainant. Moreover, the 2nd OP has voluntarily transferred the money from the SB account to the Crop loan account without any intimation or notice to the complainant and closed the SB account of the complainant. Thereby the complainant has lost the subsidy amount crop loan and gas subsidy. For no fault of complainant, he has suffered at the hands of the 2nd OP. Further, the 2nd OP has accepted the mistake and then reopened the SB account of the complainant and transferred the amount of Rs.5,220=00 from the crop loan account No.54054977384 to the SB account no.64091623954 of the complainant even without notice or consent of the complainant. The said action of the 2nd OP is wholly deliberate intentional and caused injury to the complainant who is a poor farmer. So after careful scrutiny of the case of complainant on the back ground of oral and documentary evidence of complainant has narrated supra, it is made crystal clear that, the 2nd OP has not provided service to the complainant. On account of negligence of 2nd OP, the complainant had lost the subsidy amount from the government and that act of the 2nd OP has made the complainant to suffer financial loss and it amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd OP. As such we are of the opinion that, the complainant has proved with clear cogent and consistent material evidence that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd OP. Accordingly we answer this point in the affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The 2nd OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000=00 to the complainant towards deficiency in service within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the 2nd OP shall pay the above said amount to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint to till the date of realization.
The 2nd OP is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant.
The complaint filed against the 1st OP is hereby dismissed. No costs.
This order is to be complied by the 2nd OP within 30 days from the date of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 9th day of November 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
