FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Debi Sengupta,  Presiding Member.

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant is the account holder of State Bank of India, Bhadreswar branch and the complainant maintain a Savings Bank Account vide account no. 30612464488. The complainant states that Rs. 24,000/- has been deposited in his account. But the Bank Authority by showing cause that minimum balance does not exist in the Savings Account of the complainant and debited Rs. 69/- on 13/6/2017, Rs. 92/- on 12/7/2017, Rs. 94.40/- on 20/8/2017, Rs. 94.40/- on 31/8/2017 and 94.40/- on 30/9/2017. The complainant states and alleged that the said amount was debited illegally from the Savings Account due to minimum balance does not exist. The complainant contented that no prior consent was taken from the complainant by the Bank Authority. The complainant alleged that repeated complaint lodged by the complainant verbally and in writing. The Bank Authority did not take appropriate steps accordingly. The complainant being a senior citizen of the society, the bank authority intentionally harassed him repeatedly.

          Having no other alternatives the complainant has come before the Ld. Forum for redress and prayed before the Ld. Forum to return back his debited amount with interest and also prayed for compensations for harassment and mental agony.

          The opposite party contested the case by filing W.V. and denied all the allegations averred against them. The opposite party states and submits that as per as record is available in the office record due to compute generating system of the Bank, may be deducted the MAD charges from Savings Bank Account of the complainant vide no. 306124644488 as sufficient balance not existing  in the account of the complainant as per norms of the bank. The said amount as fine was deducted as Rs. 69/- on 13/6/2017, Rs. 92/- on 12/7/2017, Rs. 94.40/- on 20/8/2017, Rs. 94.40/- on 31/8/2017 and 94.40/- on 30/9/2017 respectively. The opposite party further submits and states that the said deducted amount was wrongly deducted by virtue of computer generating system of the bank and if the Ld. Counsel directed to the opposite party then the opposite party is willing to return the said amount to the complainant. The opposite party in his written version states and assailed that the complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable and the present case is also barred under misjoinder of necessary party and paragraphs 1,2,3,4 of the petition of the complainant the matter of facts and is liable to strict proof thereof and the complainant is not entitled to relief as prayed for and the opposite party prays for dismissal of the case against them be dismissed with cost.

Points for decision

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party;
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to  entertain and try the case;
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party;
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not.

Decisions with Reasons

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party, as the complainant is the account holder of the State Bank of India, Bhadreswar Branch and his A/C No. is 30612464488. So, he is entitled to get service from the opposite party as consumer.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite party are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. The loss sustained by the complainant and the compensation for mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 20,000,00/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the account holder of the State Bank of India, Bhadreswar Branch and he maintains a Savings Account vide no. 30612464488. He alleged that during the relevant period Rs. 24,000/- and stood in his account. The disputes cropped up in between the parties when the opposite party, the State Bank of India due to alleged minimum balance system in the account of the complainant time to time debited Rs. 69/- on 13/6/2017, Rs. 92/- on 12/7/2017, Rs. 94.40/- on 20/8/2017, Rs. 94.40/- on 31/8/2017 and 94.40/- on 30/9/2017 illegally. In spite of several requests verbally and written of the complainants, the opposite party Bank did not take any proper measure and harassed the complainant being a senior citizen.

                 In the written version, the opposite party took the plea that due to computer generating system of the Bank that may be deducted of MAD charges from the Savings Account of the complainant as sufficient balance not existing in the account of the complainant as per norms of the Bank. In the brief notes of argument, the opposite party argued that the said amount may be deducted wrongly by virtue of computer generating system of the opposite party bank. The opposite party bank further submits in the paragraph no. 13 of written version that the said deduction of amount was wrongly deducted by virtue of computer generating system of the Bank and the opposite party Bank would return the same amount to the complainant’s account, if there is a direction of this Ld. Forum.

               After perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, brief notes of argument of the opposite party Bank and having heard the parties this Forum is in the opinion that the opposite party Bank debited the aforesaid money from the complainant account on several times not properly and without any basis.

            Therefore, relying upon the materials on record, we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Bank. So, the prayer of the complainant is allowed on contest.

Hence,

It is

ORDERED

             that the complainant case being no. 209/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.

             The opposite party is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant for mental pain and agony.

             The opposite party is directed to return back the deducted amount along with 8% the interest to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order.

            In the event of failure to comply with the order, the opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, it caused on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

         Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates on record by hand.