West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/33/2017

Sovon Chandra, S/O P.S Chandra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, SBI, Ahamadpur Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

27 Sep 2018

ORDER

The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is SB A/C holder being A/C No. 303083394649 under OP SBI. Ahamadpur Branch that the said A/C is a joint A/C and the complainant is the first A/C holder and his wife Amrita Chandra is the second holder of that A/C and the complainant filed some documents of his wife Amrita Chandra to apply in the scheme Atal Pension Yojona (in short A.P.Y) before the opposite party Bank in the month of August 2015. That after that the complainant came to know from the opposite party Bank that the scheme of A.P.Y had not been started in the name of his wife as she was the second A/C holder.

            It is the further case of the complainant subsequently the Complainant’s wife Amrita Chandra opened A.P.Y scheme in United Bank of India, Ahamadpur, Branch, Ahamadpur, Birbhum as she had on SB A/c there in being No. 0210010335942 and the said scheme was started on 18/09/2015 and the Bank authority deducted Rs. 824/- from the SB A/C of the complainant’s wife lying before U.B.I Ahamadpur Branch, Ahamadpur, Birbhum.

            But inspite of closing the A.P.Y scheme in the name of Amrita Chandra, wife of the Complainant of O.P Bank deducted Rs. 824/- from the SB A/C of the complainant for several months, even during the pendency of the case.

            It is the further case of the Complainant that then the complainant submitted an application dated 14/03/2016 before the opposite party bank to close the A.P.Y scheme from his SB A/C being No. 30603894649 and also request to refund the premium amount of Rs. 2481/- and the complainant gave his representation in writing before the opposite party Bank on 14/01/2016 and thereafter on 03/01/2017 but they did not do the needful.

            Hence this case for directing the O.P to close A.P.Y Scheme in the name of Amrita Chandra from SB A/C No. 30608394649 and to pay Rs. 2481/- with interest to the complainant.

            The Op SBI has contested the case by filing written version dyeing all material allegations of the complaint contending inter alia the present case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action.

            It is the specific case of the Op that from the petition it is crystal clear that during pendency of the first application at SBI the complainant opted/enrolled for second choice at United Bank of Ahamedpur Branch on the self-same scheme which was applied at SBI without informing the present OP which is unjustified and illegal. Besides that sometimes it takes time to open the A/C and Bank is only the facilitator but Bank has no capacity to alter or monitor the ongoing process of the account which is entirely on the hands of Government and Bank is just a mediator under Reserve Bank.

 

 

It is the further case of the OP/Bank that as per Atal Pension Yojana a subscriber can only open one APY account in the same scheme and it is unique and therefore multiple account are not permitted and the complainant having done so cannot get any relief as prayed for.  

            It is the next case by the O.P/ Bank that more so ever before applying for the second time at a different Bank under the same scheme which is not allowed under APY rules the party should have approached to Bank for withdrawing the application in writing before applying twice. Besides that the benefit of APY is indifferent to contemporary Bank, so quitting from SBI without seeing any redressal for the alleged delay was unjustified and uncalled for.

            Ultimately the Op Bank submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Op and case is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Abbusuddin has been examined as PW1 and also filed some documents. He was corss-examined by the O.P/Bank.

The O.P Bank has not adduced any oral evidence but submitted some documents.

Heard argument.

Point No.1:: the Complainant is SB A/C holder being A/C No. 303083394649 under OP SBI.    

So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: O.P has Branch Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 7481/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

The Complainant in his complainant and evidence stated that  is the case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is SB A/C holder being A/C No. 303083394649 under OP/SBI. Ahamadpur Branch that the said A/C is a joint A/C and the complainant is the first A/C holder and his wife Amrita Chandra is the second holder of that A/C and the complainant filed some documents of his wife Amrita Chandra to apply in the scheme Atal Pension Yojona (in short A.P.Y) before the opposite party Bank in the month of August 2015.

            Copy of the pass book being No. SB A/C No. 303083394649 lying before Op SBI Ahamadpur Branch shows that a joint account stands in the name of the Complainant Sovon Chandra chance and his wife Amrita Chandra and scheme of Atal Pension Yojona was attached with said account

The Complainant further stated that as the Op bank had not started the scheme A.P.Y in the name of the wife, subsequently wife of the Complainant’s wife Amrita Chandra opened A.P.Y scheme in United Bank of India, Ahamadpur, Branch, Ahamadpur, Birbhum as she had a SB A/c there in being No. 0210010335942 and the said scheme was started on 18/09/2015.

 

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that there after the complainant submitted an application dated 14/03/2016 before the opposite party bank to close the A.P.Y scheme from his SB A/C being No. 30603894649 and also request to refund the premium amount of Rs. 2481/- and the complainant gave his representation in writing before the opposite party Bank on 14/01/2016 and thereafter on 03/01/2017 but they did not do the needful.

The copy of representation dated 14/03/2016 and 14/01/2016 show that the complainant requested the Op/Bank to close his A.P.Y scheme

            Copy of latter dared 1/8/17 shows that Amrita Chandra requested the regional director RBI Kolkata to close scheme.

            Entries in the joint pass book of the Complainant shows that Rs. 824/- was deducted from the said account as premium for the month of December 2015 for A.P.Y scheme and Rs. 824/- and Rs. 833/- were deducted from the said account as premium for the month of January 2016 and February 2016 respectively and total Rs. 2481/- was deducted from the said account.

            Copy of E-mail addressed to Amrita Chandra shows that as per her request the Op/Bank has closed A.P.Y account of complainant.

We find from the voluntary exists form that in case subscriber who has availed Government Co-Contribution under A.P.Y chooses to voluntarily exit A.P.Y before the age 60, he/she shall only be refunded the contributions made by him/her to A.P.Y, along with the net actual income earned on his/her contributions (after deducting the account maintenance, assets, management Charges) whereas, the Government co-contribution and the income earned on the Government Co-Contribution, shall not be returned to such subscribers.

            So it is clear that the complaint is entitled to get refund back the amount so deducted by the op bank from his S/B account

            We have already stated that the op bank deducted Rs. 2481 from the Bank account of the complainant as premium of A.P.Y scheme for the period December 2015 to February 2016.

            We find from the copies of the entries of the pass book submitted by the complainant as well as the Op that Rs 914/- was also deducted from the said account for the month of March 2016.

So the complaint is also entitled to get back said amount of Rs. 914/-.

 So ultimately the complainant is entitled to refund back Rs. 3395/-.

            We find that during trial OP/Bank has not claimed any amount as maintenance, assets, management charges.

            In view of the facts and circumstances sated above and material on regard we are constrained to hold that ultimately the complaint is entitled to get refund back Rs. 3395/- with 8% interest P/A since 01/01/2016 till realization.

            Regarding main prayer of the complainant i.e prayer for directing the Op to close A.P.Y scheme, we have already stated that said scheme has already been closed by the Op/Bank.

             So the complaint is not entitled to get such relief.

            Accordingly both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.  

Proper fees have been paid.

 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 33/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P  SBi Ahamadpur Branch with costs of Rs. 2000/-.

The OP/Bank is directed to refund back Rs. 3395/- with 8% interest P/A since 01/01/2016 till realization to the Complainant within one month from the order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.