This is a case under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant is an employee of Karala Valley Tea Garden under Kotwali P.S., within the District of Jalpaiguri and belong to the below property category. She had a provident fund account being account no. WB/ 995/1903 with the O.P. No. 1.
On January 2017 the marriage of the complainant’s daughter was settled and the date has been fixed in the month of March 2017, for which she was required to apply for money from her P.F. Account.
On January 2017, the complainant approached the O.P. No. 1 through her employer to advance her an amount, to make arrangement her daughter marriage. After a few days the O.P. No. 1 intimated her that an amount of Rs. 24,500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only) had been sanctioned has an advance against her P.F. Account. The complainant had then submitted a loan application form before the O.P. No. 1 along with her S.B. Account No. 4000251010002545, lying with Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Mohit Nagar Branch, Jalpaiguri, for transferring the above advance. After getting information from the O.P. No. 1, the complainant visited the O.P. No. 3 Branch for enquiring the advance amount, for the marriage ceremony of her daughter. The complainant had repeatedly visited the office of the O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No. 3 Branch, prior to the marriage ceremony of her daughter, but she was merely asked to enquire from either of the above O.P’s.
In the month of March 2017 at the time of marriage of her daughter the complainant was compelled to take loan from a private person for the amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) @ 5% interest per month.
In the month of May 2017 as per the advice of O.P. No. 1 the complainant visited the Branch Office of O.P. No. 2, for enquiry about the advance amount, as O.P. No. 2 was the banker of O.P. No. 1, to whom instruction had been issued by the O.P. No. 1, for transferring the advance amount to the account lying with the O.P. No. 3. But the O.P. No. 2 intimated that the amount had been erroneously credited to account no. 4000251010002550, due to system error instead of the complainant’s account. The O.P. No. 2 also informed that necessary instruction had been issued to O.P. No. 3 Branch, for transferring the said amount in the account of the complainant, vide letter dt. 09.05.2017.
But, even after the passage of long time no fruitful result could be found for which reason complainant gave are representation to O.P. No. 1 through her employer, Senior Manager, Karala Valley Tea Garden, P.O.- Mohit Nagar, District- Jalpaiguri for redressal, but O.P. No. 1 did not pay any heed.
Thereafter, on many occasions the complainant visited the Offices of the Opposite Parties, but the only refer her to each other. Hence, finding no alternative and being under huge hardship she issued a legal notice, dt. 05.10.2018 to the O.P. No. 1 with copies to O.P. No. 2 & 3. In spite receiving the notice none of the O.P.s took any initiative to resolved the matter. Rather, the staffs of the above office mis-behaved with the complainant.
During the period of Pandemic, the complainant being unable to pay interest on her borrowed amount was subjected to abuse and deformation in public place by the financer. During the Pandemic also, the complainant visited the Offices of the O.P.s, but with no result.
After the Pandemic the complainant made with her Lawyer and a legal notice dt. 14.01.2022, to all the respondents. On receipt of the notice O.P. No. 1 issued a letter to the O.P. No. 2 for resolving the matter. O.P. No. 3 also issued a reply to O.P. No. 2 vide their letter dt. 04.02.2022, informing that they had freezed the Account No. 4000251010002550 on 02.02.2022 and that the Account did not have sufficient balance. The copy of the letter was also sent to the Ld. Advocate of the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 also gave instruction to O.P. No. 2 vide their letter reference no. RO/JPG/CASH/GRIEVANCE/240(i) dt. 18.01.2022 and reference no. RO/JPG/CASH/GRIEVANCE/403(i) dt. 06.04.2022 respectively, for taking immediate measures for crediting the amount of Rs. 24500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only), into the complainant’s Bank Account, but the O.P. No. 2 did not pay any heed.
The O.P.s failed to resolve the matter and harassed the complainant following which she could not arrange the marriage daughter as per her will. Hence the complainant filed this case before this Commission.
The O.P. No. 1 has entered appearance by filing Written Version, wherein it has been mentioned that, all the funds of Employees Provident Fund Accounts were maintained by the State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Main Branch, O.P. No. 2. The loan of the complainant had been sanctioned by issuing a cheque bearing no. 099211 dt. 07.02.2017 amounting to Rs. 24,500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only), to the O.P. No. 2 S.B.I. Main Branch for crediting S.B. Account No. 4000251010002545 in O.P. No. 3 U.B.K.G. Bank, Mohit Nagar, having I.F.S.C. No. CBINOR40012. But the O.P. No. 2 S.B.I. Bank inadvertently credited the said amount in S.B. Account- 4000251010002550, depriving the complainant from getting her legitimate amount, which was also admitted vide letter dt. 09.05.2017 issued by the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Jalpaiguri. On receiving a complaint from the complainant, the O.P. No. 1 issued a letter being no. RO/JPG/CASH/GRIEV/1013 dt. 10.07.2017 to the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Main Branch, Jalpaiguri, for necessary redressal. On receipt of a legal notice, on 18.01.2022 the Assistant, P.F., Commissioner, E.P.F.O., Regional Office, Jalpaiguri, sent a letter to Chief Manager,
S.B.I. Main Branch stating the fact that O.P. No. 3 U.B.K.G., Mohit Nagar Branch, had not transferred till date the amount of Rs. 24,500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only), from the account, where the said amount had been wrongly transferred, requesting the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Main Branch, Jalpaiguri, to take up the matter seriously and on ‘Most Urgent’, basis. Therefore, the O.P. No. 1 could not be faulted as there was no lapse on its part and the negligence was mainly done by the O.P. No. 2 & 3.
O.P. No. 2 has entered appearance by filing Written Version, wherein it has been stated that, immediately on realizing the error, the O.P. No. 2 had instructed on 09.05.2017 to recover the amount which was wrongly credited in the S.B. Account No.- 4000251010002550. But the O.P. No. 3 did not take steps to recover the said amount till 01.02.2022 and informed the complainant and the O.P. No. 2, that they were unable to recover the said amount and as the said account did not have sufficient balance. Furthermore, it has been mentioned that, the instant case was not applicable against it, as the complainant was not a consumer of the services of the O.P. No. 2, Bank.
O.P. No. 3 has entered appearance by filing Written Version, wherein it has been stated that, neither information nor any letter had been received from the O.P. No. 2 on 09.05.2017 and only after receiving the letter from O.P. No. 2 dt. 20.01.2022, the account no. 4000251010002550 had been freezed and as the account did not hold any sufficient balance, the matter had been informed to O.P. No. 1, 2 and Complainant. Therefore, no cause of action of the instant case arose against O.P. No. 3.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for?
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
According to the consumer protection act 2019 “consumer” means any person who,—
- buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the ser vices for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such ser vices for any commercial purpose;
Explanation.—for the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment;”
In this case the complainant is a consumer of O.P-No-1 &3. But, the entire dispute was arise when the O.P. No. 2 S.B.I. Main Branch inadvertently credited the alleged amount of the complainant in S.B. Account- 4000251010002550 in place of crediting S.B. Account No. 4000251010002545 in O.P. No. 3 U.B.K.G. Bank, Mohit Nagar, having I.F.S.C. No. CBINOR40012. The O.P. No. 2 S.B.I. Main Branch is the banker of O.P No-1 who is giving banking services on behalf of the O.P-No-1. The O.P. No. 2 S.B.I. Main Branch never decline the allegation made by The O.P. No-1.In their evidence-in-affidavit (para-7) the O.P. No. 2 also admitted their “mistake” or “chance of error”. From the case record we have seen that on dated 09/05/2017 the O.P.No-2 wrote a letter to O.P.No- 3 for recover “AMT OF Rs. 24500/- ERRONOUSLY CREDITED TO A/C 4000251010002550DUE TO SYSTEM ERROR REQUEST TO CREDIT THE AMOUNT TO A/C 4000251010002545”. O.P. No. 3 U.B.K.G. Bank, Mohit Nagar deny the same and submitted that they only freezed the account no - 4000251010002550 after receiving the letter from O.P. No. 2 on dated 20/01/2022. The account did not hold any sufficient balance. O.P. No. 3 U.B.K.G. Bank did nothing to recover the money except freezing the account. The initiative taken by the O.P. No. 1 was below the expectations. A contributory negligence was done by all the opposite party against the Complainant. The question of good faith and negligence is to be judged from the standpoint of the complainant towards whom the SBI bank owes no contractual liability but only statutory duty. The standard of care to be exercised by the banks to escape the charge of negligence depends upon the general practice of the bankes, which may change from time to time, further with the huge spread of banking activities and cases decided a few decades ago may not probably offer unfailing guidance in determining the question of negligence at a later point of time. Another observation is that the allegation of contributory negligence against the O.Ps could provide no defense for the S.B.I and U.B.K.G. Bank who has not done their duty in good faith and without negligence.
In a very significant judgment with far reaching consequences, the Hon’ble THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Pradeep Kumar And Anr. vs Post Master General and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 8775-8776 of 2016 delivered as recently as
on February 7, 2022 held that once it is established that fraud or any wrongful act was perpetrated by an employee of a post/bank office during the course of their employment, the post/bank office would be vicariously liable for the wrongful act of such employee. The Supreme Court clarified that the post office is entitled to proceed against the concerned officer, but the same would not absolve them from their liability.
We have gone through the records and other related documents of the case and have come to conclusion that the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would be liable for the contributory negligence. In view of the above discussion we may come to the conclusion that the O.P.No-2 is guilty for deficiency in services and the service provided by the other O.P.s were not up to the mark.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief as specified bellow.
All points are disposed of. In the result the case/ application succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
We allow the consumer case by issuing the following directions
- Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay the Rs. 24,500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only) along with 7% simple interest per annum from 1st February 2017 till the date of payment to the complainant.
- The complainant is entitled to get compensation for his mental pain and agony of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation cost from O.P-1.
- Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to refund Rs. 24,500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only) along with 7% simple interest per annum from 1st February 2017 till the date of payment to the O.P.No-1 for their unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 100,000/- to the O.P.No-1.
- Opposite Party No. 3 is directed to refund Rs. 24,500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the O.P.No-2.
The order should be comply within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order failing which the complainant/O.P will be at liberty to put the order in execution according to provision of law.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.
