DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sh. Sudhir Chauhan son of Sh. K. S. Chauhan resident of House No.1018/2, HIG Flats, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1.    General Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

2.    State Bank of India, Chandigarh Main Branch, SCO No.43-48, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh (Branch Code 628) through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:          SH. LAKHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:          Sh. Sudhir Chauhan, complainant in person.

                    Sh. S. K. Gupta, Advocate for the OPs

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.           Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties, on the grounds that the complainant had opened a savings account with opposite party No.2 on 1.2.2011 and the account number is 31609723236. The photocopy of the Passbook has been annexed as Annexure C-2. The complainant while opening his account with Opposite party-2 had fulfilled all the formalities as per the requirement of the Bank. The complainant had also appended his specimen signatures and had requested for a facility for Net Banking and Mobile Banking from opposite party No.2. The complainant there after issued few cheques in discharge of his liability and the same were returned back with the remarks “No Image Contact the Bank”. On enquiring about this fact, the complainant came to know that opposite party No.2 had failed to upload the specimen digital signatures resultantly the signatures on the Cheque could not be verified and hence, the same were returned with the aforesaid remark. The photocopies of these cheques are annexed as Annexure C-3 (Colly).

2.           The complainant has also alleged that though he was assured that facility of Net Banking and Mobile Banking would be available to him but till date these services too have not been activated despite repeated requests made by him. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the activation of the aforesaid services as well as compensation to the tune of Rs.1 Lac on account of physical and mental harassment are also claimed.

3.           Opposite parties have contested the claim of the complainant and has filed their collective version/written statement wherein they have taken preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the present complaint for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and taking an objection with regard to the fact that the officials of the Opposite parties have been impleaded in their individual capacity and demand that the complaint be dismissed on this ground only.

4.           On merits, while admitting to the fact that the complainant had opened an account with the Opposite party-2 and was very much within his rights to issue the cheques and without disputing the other facts, as same being part of the record. In reply to the main issue about the uploading of digital signatures is admitted to the extent that the same was to be uploaded by the Opposite party”s Noida Office and because of some technical error/reason it could not be uploaded in time. But it is further mentioned that the signatures of the complainant have already been uploaded as of now.

5.           In reply to the second allegation of availability of Net Banking services and Mobile Banking services the same were provided within 24 hours of opening of the account by the complainant. However, it is further stated that it was probably due to the ignorance or lack of knowledge that the complainant was not able to operate the same.

6.           Opposite parties have also categorically stated that as the complainant did not approached them to register his complaint/grievance and as such, they were not aware of the same and furthermore, it is also contested that as the complainant has not suffered any financial loss for the delay in uploading the specimen signatures by the Bank, the Bank is ready to compensate the actual financial loss suffered by the complainant and the same is to be revealed by him alone. The opposite parties have also stated that the complainant should have issued a notice, though the same is not mandatory, so that the needful could have been done to help him in redressing his grievance at the initial stage itself. Thus, on the aforesaid grounds, Opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint.

7.           Parties led their respective evidences.

8.           Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the opposite parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

(i)           As it is clearly evident from the evidence tendered by the complainant [Annexures C-3 (Colly)] wherein the two cheques bearing No.891469 and 891471 dated 1.3.2011 and 14.3.2011 respectively issued in the name of Sudhir Chauhan and Sh. S. P. Malik clearly show that the same were returned with a comment “No Image Contact the Branch”. The reason attributed to this effect is the addmission of the opposite parties that their Noida branch had failed to promptly upload the digital specimen signatures of the complainant and resultantly, the Branch that entertained the said cheques was not able to clear them for the aforesaid reason. While going through the contents of these two cheques, it is evident that one of them has been issued to self, by the complainant. However, the second one was issued to one Sh. S. P. Malik. Though it is understood that the complainant may not have lost any money while these two instruments were returned to him but we believe that he may have definitely suffered humiliation in case of the second Cheque being returned to him as the complainant was not able to transfer the money to Sh. S. P. Malik and had definitely failed to keep his promise. From the reply of the OPs, it is very much clear that they have admitted the fact of delay in uploading the digital image of specimen signatures while attributing the fault to its Noida Branch. In the present circumstances we feel that the delayed services  are definitely deficient services.

(ii)          While dealing with the second allegation of the complainant, it is important to note that the complainant has not specifically mentioned about the time and date when he had actually tried to use the services of Net Banking and Mobile Banking and that he ultimately failed in doing so. So, under such circumstances, we are unable to actually identify the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties with regard to the second allegation. The opposite parties have categorically stated in their affidavit that both these services were made available to the complainant within 24 Hrs of opening of the Account and the complainant has not refuted the averments of the reply of the opposite parties. Hence, we do not find any merit in giving any observation about the second issue.

9.           In the light of the above observations, we feel that the present complaint succeeds against the opposite parties and we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation to the complainant.

10.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the opposite parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of order.

11.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th December, 2011.                                                        Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER