The Appeal is directed against the order dated 09^th March, 1995 passed by the District Consumers (Protection) Forum, West Garo Hills, Tura, whereby the district Forum awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- for deficient service, etc. and Rs.2,000/- as cost.

 

2. The Respondents/Complainants are the account holders of the State Bank of India Tura Branch. The complainants deposited certain dividend warrants/interest warrants issued by the S.B.I. Mutual Fund Division, Unit Trust of India, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited during the period from December 1990 to August 1991, which were payable at par at all the branches of State Bank of India in India. The Appellants/Defendants debited certain charges from the accounts of the complainants towards commission/P & T charges. The complainant objected to the aforesaid actions and moved the higher authorities and finally the Defendants credited the sum in favour of the accounts holder. The grievance of the complainant was relating to the action of the Branch Manager State Bank of India illegally taking the charges unlawfully, which according to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. The complainants also sought for damages and compensation for the wrongful loss caused to them and also prayed for compensation for the wrongful loss caused to them and also prayed for compensation for causing mental agony, humiliation, etc. The Appellants/Defendant contested the claim of the complainants and also challenged the maintainability of the complaint petition., The District Forum, on examining the complaint-petition, held that the action amounted to deficiency in service and the same has been well established and that the complainants succeeded in establishing mental agony and injury, and accordingly the District Forum held the Defendants/Appellants liable to pay compensation to the complainants. The District Forum accordingly issued the following directions to the Appellants:

 

“1. The State Bank of India and its all branches shall not charge any P & T charges or out of pocket expenses on such instruments with the legend “payable at par in all the branches of State Bank of India in India” when presented by any customer or consumer.

 

 2. The State Bank of India management shall take all necessary and effective steps and issue necessary instructions so that this ‘deficiency in service’ is rectified.

 

 3. The State Bank of India shall make good the P & T Charges so deducted on all such accounts in its branches of any other consumer/account holder where in respect of similar instruments P & T charges have been charged and debited. A compliance report by the Regional Manager/Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Tura shall be furnished to this Forum within 60 days of this order.

 

 4. The State Bank of India, Tura Main Branch shall pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- only for loss, injury, harassment, mental agony and negligence and deficiencies in service exclusively to the Petitioner in the instant case, ie. To Shri.K.J.Joseph, who was pursued this case single handedly within 30 days and with default with 12% interest.

 

5. Further this Forum also is pleased to award Rs.2,000/- only as cost to the Petitioner for having pursued this case with exemplary courage and sincere devotion in the true spirit of the issues at hand. The cost also be paid within 30 days and in default with 12% interest.   

 

3.        Shri. S.R.Sen, learned counsel for the Appellants assailed the impugned order of the District Forum on merit apart from assailing the maintainability of the complaint. Mr.K.J.Joseph, the complainant appeared-in-person, argued his case and effectively.            

  

4.          The learned District Forum pointed out 10 instances of debiting of charges from 4.12.90 to 08.3.94, which are mentioned below:

 

                                                      Debited                                  Credited

 

1. PC 7/1096                            04.12.09 - 22.90                     03.05.91 - 14.90

                                                 16.04.91 - 08.00                     08.11.91 - 16.00

2. PC 7/1039

          (B)                                  22.10.09 – 03.00

                                                 26.07.91 – 03.00                    08.11.91 – 06.00

                                                 06.08.91 – 03.00                   

                                                 17.09.91 – 03.00

                                                 09.06.92 – 08.00                    11.01.93 – 14.00

                                                 08.03.94 - 03.00

3. PC 2/212                              06.08.91 – 03.00                    08.11.91 – 03.00

                                                 14.08.92 – 03.00                    11.01.93 – 03.00

 

From the above table it appears that the Defendant/Bank though debited on 4.12.90 an amount of Rs.22.90 on 3.5.91 it credited only Rs.14.90, instead of crediting the full amount of Rs.22.90. According to Mr.Joseph this is deliberate violation of Bank instruction of 28.10.91.