Date of filing: 29.02.2016 Date of disposal: 14.08.2018
Complainant: Sri Soumen Sen, S/o. Jnanendra Prosad Sen, residing at Krishnapur Road, PO: Rajbati, PS: Bardhaman Sadar, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 104.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, B. C. Road Branch, PO: Rajbati, PS: Bardhaman Sadar, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 101.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, AG Tower, 3rd Floor, 125/1 Park Street, Kolkata – 700 017.
3. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, G. T. Road Branch, 109, G. T. Road, Tinkonia, Dist: Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 101.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Soham Chatterjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Ashish Kr. Pal.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: None (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Ops wrongfully deducted amount from his savings account and did not refund the same.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant maintains a S.B. A/c. being No. 3194000100079141 with the OP-1. The complainant came to know that an amount of Rs. 13,139=00 has unexpectedly been debited from the said A/c. on 19.12.2015 towards ECS dated 02.05.2013 and being stupefied for such deduction rushed to the OP-1 to have details knowledge about the reason but the OP-1 neither provided any satisfactory answer nor assured the complainant to think about the matter and advised to meet Mr. P. Das of Punjab National Bank, main Branch and stated that all ECS maters are dealt with the said person. The said Mr. Das did not furnish any satisfactory reply in support of such deduction. The complainant again visited the OP-1 several times for explaining the reason for education but the staff of the office of OP-1 behaved rudely as well as offensive with the complainant. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice dated 03.02.2016 to the OP-1 but no reply is received from the OP-1 though received the same. This acts and conducts of the Ops are nothing but illegal trade practice and also deficiency in service as per C.P. Act. Finding no other alternative the complainant has been compelled to file the instant case with a prayer to repay/credit the amount of Rs. 13,139=00, to pay Rs. 20,000=00 for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, Rs. 15,000=00 for suffering from mental agony and Rs. 10,000=00 for litigation cost.
The complaint is contested by the OP-1 by filing W.V. that the complainant came to this OP to know in respect of deduction of amount for the cause of ECS transaction and this OP with careful relation made the opinion to this complainant that the amount has been deducted for the cause of ECS debit and such has been deducted according to the consent, more that the PNB G.T. Road Branch is a dealing branch, who operate the all ECS matter of all branch of Burdwan Town. This OP is only the caretaker of the account for the instant fact and PNB, G. T. road and the Bajaj Financing Authority is proper concerned party between whom the fact of ECS transaction has been operated. The OP-1 prays for dismissal of this complaint against this OP with exemplary cost.
The case is also contested by the OP-3 by filing separate W.V. stating that the complainant complained in respect of deduction of Rs. 13,139=00 from the A/c. being No. 3194000100079141 has been deducted due to operation of ECS proceedings it is necessary to mention here that without any mandate and direction of the customer, no such ECS proceedings should be started in respect of such Account of the customer and such direction and mandate maintained according to Rule of RBI and through the guidance of RBI.
The complainant has given his mandate for deduction of amount to the TP Bajaj Auto Finance Authority through ECS and according to such mandate the Bank has started the deduction from the account of the complainant and served to Account of Bajaj Auto Finance and such ECS deduction shall be reflected in the statement of the Account of the complainant, RBI direction.
According to such regular proceeding the demand amount has come to the Bank authority through the procedure of RBI and such amount shall be deducted from the account of the bank, beside it such deduction should be reflected in the account of the complainant, but at that time the account of the complainant was not sound for deduction of the amount and due to cause of any such problem such information i.e. deficiency of fund of the complainant in that account, has not been served to the RBI, as such RBI has deducted the amount from the account of Bank authority and such has been served go the addressee Bajaj Auto Finance authority.
This OP further states that according to system of the Bank authority such deduction of the amount should be accountable in respect the account of the complainant and when the complainant further make sound of the account as deductable condition of the amount, then the authority of the Bank according to system has deducted such amount as Rs. 13,139=00 and for such proceedings the deduction has been reflected in the statement of the complainant in subsequent ledger system. The deduction of amount originally deducted in earlier time as mentioned in above, while all such description of deduction has been properly described to the complainant. The complainant is not liable to get any relief as prayed for; on the contrary he will be responsible to pay the penalty for making harassment to the Bank.
The case is heard ex parte against the OP No. 2.
-: Decision with reasons :-
To prove the case the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit along with documents. OP Nos. 1 & 3 also filed evidence. Complainant also filed questionnaires against the evidence of OP No. 3 and a reply of the same is also filed by the OP No. 3.
Thereafter, both parties tabled their elaborate argument along with written argument filed.
After hearing the argument of both sides and perusal of the petition of complaint as well as documents filed by the parties it is clear to this Forum that complainant agitated against the OP Bank that an amount of Rs. 13,139=00 has been deducted illegally from his Account and when complainant went to the OP Bank to know as to why the amount was deducted he was not given any satisfactory answer but OP Bank behaved rudely with the complainant and complainant was forced to sent legal notice dated 03.02.2016 which was received by the OP Bank. The cause of action arose on 19.12.2015 from the date of such wrongful deduction. Therefore, complainant prays for direction upon the Ops to repay the said amount of Rs. 13,139=00 with compensation for deficiency in service and illegal and unfair trade practice to the tune of Rs. 20,000=00, Rs. 15,000=00 for mental harassment and Rs,. 10,000=00 as litigation cost. OP Nos. 1 & 3 in their evidence categorically stated and one Anil Kumar Mondal deposed on behalf of OP-1&3, a Senior Manager of the Bank deposed in this case. He deposed that complainant has given a direction and mandate to pay the amount to TP Bajaj and according to such direction and as per demand of TP Bajaj, the amount has been deducted from the account of the complainant. The procedure has been controlled centrally from Kolkata and the message from Kolkata office is given for deduction through ECS procedure in respect of any payment. But if there is no such balance in the respective account of the customer, at that time Kolkata office shall deduct the amount from the Bank’s own account which shall be adjusted with respective account of person for which the ECS has been deducted. As per the instruction of the complainant ECS has been deducted chronologically. The system generated computer printed statement is also produced along with documents that the procedure has been maintained centrally by rule of Reserve Bank of India as National Clearing Cell, Kolkata.
The complainant also filed documents of RBI dated 05.06.2013 in respect of Punjab National Bank, item wise destination ledger report and electronic clearing service (debit clearing). Moreover, the account holders statement of account (debit clearing) dated 10.06.2013 and the ledger report goes to show that from the account of complainant Soumen Sen that through ECS procedure on 05.02.2013, 05.06.2013, 11.06.2013, 12.06.2013 & 05.03.2014. The demand has been made by the Bajaj Auto through ECS procedure. But on that date the account of the complainant was not sufficient. The Bank authority who maintained ECS centrally has debited the amount from the Bank holders amount i.e. Rs. 13.139=00 while such amount subsequently adjusted on 19.12.2015 when the complainant’s account has been sufficient with fund. Moreover, the statement of account filed by the Bank goes to show the amount has been deducted through ECS from 08.08.12 and no question arose from the side of the complainant only when the amount was deducted of Rs. 13,139=00, complainant raised allegation. The OP by producing the documents i.e. Account Ledger Enquiry in the name of complainant dated 06.05.2013 to 02.05.2014 goes to show such ECS payment and Account Leger Enquiry dated 08.08.12 also shows such payment on ECS. The Account Ledger Enquiry dated 24.05.2013 goes to show that the balance was with insufficient amount when on 20.06.2013 the complainant deposited Rs. 2,500=00 and balance became sufficient. OP also filed the Account Ledger Enquiry of the complainant - account holder Soumen Sen, which also proves the fact that whenever the balance of the account remain insufficient the ECS was deducted from Bank’s own account and which was subsequently adjusted.
Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Op Bank. OP Bank did not deduct any amount illegally from the account of the complainant. Complainant has not been able to prove his case and therefore cannot pray for any direction for repayment of amount of Rs. 13,139=00 as alleged. As a result, the case of the complainant fails. C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 29/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1& 3 and dismissed ex parte against the OP No. 2 without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
