Orissa

Jajapur

CC/289/2012

Sangram Keshari Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputy General Manager SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeepta Kumar Samal

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                      Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                                      2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                      3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

 

Dated the 23rd day of February,2015.

C. C. Case No.289 of 2012

Sangram Keshari Biswal, S/O Naba kishore Biswal

At./ P.O/P.S- Panikoili

Dist.- Jajpur.                                                                                                     ……………..Complainant .                                                                                              

                        (Versus)

Deputy General Manager,State Bank of India, Jajpur Town Branch

At/P.O/Dist.jajpur.

                                                                                                                               …………Opp.Party.

For the Complainant:                    Sri  P.K. Samal, Sri J.Mishra, Advocates.

For the Opp. Party   :                  Sri   P.K. Daspattnaik, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order    :    23. 02.2015.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY MEMBER.

                   Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the complainant.

                        Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant  is a A/C holder under the O.P. bearing A/C No. 11308957300. The complainant has availed  Internet  Banking  System from the O.P. Bank. The complainant made 34 numbers of Demand Drafts from 13.04.2010 to 25.04.2010 through on line by using his internet Banking System. The list of D.Ds. are given below.

                                    List of on line D.D. made from S.B.I A/C No. 00000011308957302

01	ID00156602	Demand Draft	13-Apr-2010	1,500.00	Success
02	ID00185384	Demand Draft	26-Jun-2010	1,500.00	Success
03	ID00185382	Demand Draft	26-Jun-2010	1,500.00	Success
04	ID00187968	Demand Draft	03-Jul-2010	2,000.00	Success
05	ID00187961	Demand Draft	03-Jul-2010	3,000.00	Success
06	ID00187957	Demand Draft	03-Jul-2010	3,000.00	Success
07	ID00187955	Demand Draft	03-Jul-2010	1,500.00	Success
08	ID00187952	Demand Draft	03-Jul-2010	3,000.00	Success
09	ID00189667	Demand Draft	07-Jul-2010	3,000.00	Success
10	ID00190879	Demand Draft	10-Jul-2010	1,500.00	Success
11	ID00190878	Demand Draft	10-Jul-2010	1,550.00	Success
12	ID00190877	Demand Draft	10-Jul-2010	10,000.00	Success
13	ID00194261	Demand Draft	19-Jul-2010	1,500.00	Success
14	ID00194250	Demand Draft	19-Jul-2010	5,000.00	Success
15	ID00194244	Demand Draft	19-Jul-2010	10,000.00	Success
16	ID00234686	Demand Draft	27-Oct-2010	3,000.00	Success
17	ID00234683	Demand Draft	27-Oct-2010	3,000.00	Success
18	ID00257443	Demand Draft	21-Dec-2010	3,866.00	Success
19	ID00257437	Demand Draft	21-Dec-2010	7,732.00	Success
20	ID00326513	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,530.00	Success
21	ID00326510	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	2,030.00	Success
22	ID00326508	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	530.00	Success
23	ID00326504	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	530.00	Success
24	ID00326499	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	530.00	Success
25	ID00326494	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	530.00	Success
26	ID00326490	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	530.00	Success
27	ID00326486	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success
28	ID00326483	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success
29	ID00326477	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success
30	ID00326470	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success
31	ID00326465	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success
32	ID00326463	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success
33	ID00326458	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success
34	ID00326455	Demand Draft	25-Apr-2011	1,030.00	Success

 

As per the guide line of S.B.I the following table lists the commission applicable for D.D.transactions.

Amount( in Rs)                                                                           Commissions         

Up to 10,000                                                                         No commission

10,000/- to 1,000,00                                                             Rs.50/-

1,000,00 to 5,00,000                                                            Rs.100/-

                        It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P. Bank did not charge D.D commissions in respect of D.Ds. i.e S.L No. 1 to 9 but the O.P. Bank charged and debited Rs.375/- as D.D Commission illegally in respect of S.L No. 20 to 34 which are done on 25.04.11 though the complainant  is not liable to pay the D.D Commission as per the rule of the bank. The D.D transactions done on 25.04.11 i.e S.L No.20 to 34  are below Rs.10,000/-. The D.D. Commission of Rs.375/- deducted from the complainant’s account is illegal violating the rules and guide line of the bank which  amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

                        The complainant  lodged complain before the authority but it was in vain. Hence the complainant filed this dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P. to compensate the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damage,mental agony and litigation charges.

                         On being noticed the O.P. appeared and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition and inter alia pleaded that   the complaint is a customer of O.P. Bank. The O.P. for his own convenience has availed internet Banking System from the O.P. Bank. As per his allegation, he has made numbers of demand draft through online by using  his internet Banking System. As per rules there are no charge for the demand draft below Rs.10,000/- but O.P Bank  deducted Rs.375/- separately against 15 nos. Demand Draft without his knowledge. In the complain petition no specific details have been mentioned about the alleged demand draft for which the Commission has been deducted by the O.P. Bank from the complainant’s S.B A/C. unless until the details have been furnished to this O.P. is helpless to assist the complainant in this regard. The complainant has got a personal savings Bank Account. As per norms and procedure the operation of SB A/C is always for limited purpose i.e for personal purpose. Now a days  Bank’s are controlled through Core Banking System. If any circumstances the system feels that the customer is using his S.B A/C more than his limit then extra amount will be charged and direction may be issued to deduct the same from the said SB A/C. However in instant case no details or particular date has not been furnished to the Bank, for which Commission has already been charged and for which Commission has not yet been charged. The O.P. Bank is always ready and willing to co-operate its customer.

                        On the date of hearing we have heard the learned counsels of the respective parties. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

                        It is submitted by the learned counsel of the complainant that the complainant had done D.Ds from S.L. No.20 to 34 (15 numbers) through Internet Banking System on 25.04.11. Each transaction does not exceed Rs.10,000/- . As per rule the O.P. Bank is not entitled to deduct commissions on the D.Ds done. But the bank charged Rs.375/- towards D.D commission on 26.04.11 . Hence there is unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of the O.P.  for which they are liable to be punished.

                        On the other hand the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the O.P. deducted  Rs.375/- separately against the 15 numbers of D.Ds as per the Banking audit department. Hence O.P. is no way liable for any deficiency in service.

                        After appraisal of the evidence on record we find  that there is no provision to deduct D.D. Commission through Internet Banking when each transaction does not exceed Rs.10,000/-  as per the admission of  the O.P. . The O.P. Bank also failed to prove under what circumstances, guide line and rule they have deducted Rs.375/- from the A/C of the complainant.  Hence in our opinion deduction of Rs.375/- from the A/C of the complainant towards D.D Commissions of 15 numbers of D.Ds are illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. , for which the O.P. is liable to be penalized.                                                      O R D E R

                        In the net result the complaint case is allowed against the O.P. on contest. The O.P. is directed to return Rs.375/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order. The O.P. is also directed to pay  Rs.2,000/- ( two thousand )to the complainant towards the litigation charges.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of February ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.                                                                                                                                                             

(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)                                                                       (Miss Smita Ray)

         President.                                                                                       Lady Member.

                                                                                        Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

(Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                                                     ( Miss Smita Ray )

     Member.                                                                                          Lady Member.