In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 232 / 2007 1) Subhra Sankha Mukherjee, 334, N.S.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700047. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) S.B.I., Bhowanipur Branch, Kolkata-700025. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 1 9 Dated 1 4 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 9. The complain ant, Mr. Subhra Sankha Mukherjee by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay Rs.3000/- in respect of the demand draft in question and an amount ofRs.15000/- as compensation along with other order or orders as the forum deem fit and proper. The petitioner deposited one demand draft dt.22.4.05 for clearance of Rs.3000/- bearing no.D00001196 on 6.5.05 with his banker SBI, Bhowanipur Branch, which was issued by National West Minister Bank on the drawee bank ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai Branch. To his utter surprise, the petitioner after one month, came to knew that the amount had not yet been credited to his account of SBI, Bhowanipur Branch, o.p. no.1. On query, he did not get any satisfactory answer from o.p. no.1. Thereafter to know the status of the draft in question he made several visits to o.p. no.1 and wrote several letters to that effect, namely on 30.9.05 and 2411.05 and 2.5.07 etc. O.p. no.1 did not reply to those letters and on 14.1.06 the petitioner was informed that the amount of Rs.3000/- of the draft in question had been debited to the account of the drawer of draft. But on repeated persuasion to o.p. no.1 the petitioner could not get the amount credited to his account by o.p. no.1 till 2.5.07. The petitioner further started that although he was not a consumer of ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch, o.p. no.2, they failed to perform their duty towards the consumer of o.p. no.1. And finding no other way the petitioner filed this case on 24.7.07. Notices were duly served upon o.p. nos.1 and 2. They appeared but o.p. no.1 never filed their w/v controverting the allegations made by the petitioner against them. But on 5.6.09, ld. Lawyer for the complainant informed the forum that o.p. no.1 had credited an amount of Rs.3410/- to his account (Rs.3000/- as principal + Rs.410/- as interest). O.p. no.2 filed their w/v and contended interalia that the petitioner is not a consumer of o.p. no.2, no direct transaction took place between the petitioner and o.p. no.2. And there is no evidence adduced by the o.p. no.1 that the draft in question was deposited by the o.p. no.1 with o.p. no.2 for clearance. The petitioner filed the copy of one letter on 6.7.09 sent by the o.p. no.1 to the President, CDF, Kolkata, Unit-1 stating therein that on 12.5.05 the draft in question was sent by o.p. no.1 to o.p. no.2 for clearance, and o.p. no.1 had already credited the amount of Rs.3410/- to the account of the petitioner. And through this letter o.p. no.1 also requested the petitioner to withdraw the instant case. On this point, the petitioner had prayed for an award of compensation for his mental agony, harassment caused due to the deficiency of service by the o.ps. Decision with reasons : The petitioner is the consumer of o.p. no.1 directly and he is the beneficiary of the ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch since the draft was drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai in his favour. Accordingly, he is a consumer of o.p. no.2, too after the lapse of the two years, the o.p. no.1had credited the account of the petitioner with the amount of the draft in question along with the interest informing the date of sending the draft in question for clearance to o.p. no.2. And we have perused the letter of o.p. no.1 sent to o.p. no.2 on 4.10.05 enquiry about their S.C. no.05/293 dt.12.5.05 for Rs.3000/- regarding the clearance of the draft in question. And from the letter it is also evident that o.p. no.1 had written to the o.p. no.2 prior to 4.10.05 i.e. their PBD/SC/146 dt.8.8.05. But both the letters i.e. 4.10.05 and 8.8.05 of o.p. no.1 remained unreplied. The petitioner also wrote to o,.p. no.2 to that effect. But o.p. no.2 remained silent without answering any of the letters of either o.p. no.1 or the petitioner. The consumers repose their confidence with the banks, who are always expected to be more careful in dealing with financial matters of their customers. Accordingly, both the o.ps. are found deficient in providing service to the petitioner. Although the o.p. no.1 had credited the amount of the draft in question, but they did it after a long time i.e. after two long years. Hence, we hold that both the o.ps. were negligent in discharging their services towards the petitioner. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit and contest against o.p. no.2 and ex parte against o.p. no.1. Hence, Ordered, That the o.ps. are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only jointly/individually along with cost of litigation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, making a grand total of 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only positively within thirty days from the date of passing the judgment, failing which it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. Sd- Sd- Sd- ____________ ____________ ____________ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
