This appeal is directed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the final order dated 12.07.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Siliguri in CC Case No. 53(s) 2017. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the respondent Ashok Kumar Chatterjee registered a Consumer Complaint on 15.01.2017 to the affect that being an account holder of Siliguri Court More Branch of SBI visited there on to withdraw Rs. 49,000 on 22.02.2017 from his account by issuing a cheque. The cheque was not honored and ground of refusal was not delivered to the complainant. He again visited to the said bank on 27.02.2017 for money deposit of Rs. 10,000 to his grandson’s account for tutorial expenditure which was also refused by the bank. Then again on 02.03.2017 he visited the said branch for withdraw of Rs. 29,000 from his said account by issuing of cheque but cheque was also refused to entertain. He then sent a letter to the branch manager of Court More Branch and Deputy General Manager of Zonal Office and Deputy General Manager of customer service department of the said bank for rectifications of mistakes on the part of the bank employees. When the Bank Authority did not take proper steps for his repeated harassment, he intended to transfer his account but that effort was also not entertained by the Bank Authority. So, he was compelled to register the Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Siliguri. The SBI Court More Branch and Regional Office of SBI has contested the case by filing joint written statement and mentioned that the cheque could not be encashed due to mismatch his signature and it was informed to the complainant for his rectification, So, there was no fault on the part of the Bank Authority. The specific case of the Opposite Parties is that the signatures in the cheque was mismatch with the signatures on record in the bank and for that reason the cheque issued by the complainant could not be honored until it was rectified on the part of the complainant and it was not the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party side. The complainant in support of his case tendered the evidences and submitted the connected documents. On the part of the bank one Sishupal Sah has sweared an Affidavit-in-Chief and both parties through their Ld. Advocates advanced the oral arguments. Ld. Forum after hearing both sides came into conclusion that while the complainant produced a cheque of Rs. 29,000/-. It was not encashed on that very day but the same cheque subsequently encashed on 18.03.2017 and this fact appears to the Ld. Forum deficiency of service on the part of the Bank and for that reason Ld. Forum has awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved with that order this appeal follows on the ground that the final order of Ld. Forum was based on mis-concession of fact, erroneous and bad in law and liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered before this Commission in due course. The notice was sent to the respondent Ashok Kumar Chatterjee who has appointed Ld. advocates Sri. C. Saha and Indranil Choudhury to conduct the hearing of the case on his behalf. Ld. Advocates appointed by him has completed the hearing on the part of the respondent side. The appellant side was represented through Ld. Advocate Mr. R. Tripathy and Others who conducted the hearing on behalf of the appellant.

Decision with Reasons

After hearing both sides it comes to the knowledge of the Commission that the respondent A. Chatterjee a retired person and senior citizen having a SBI account for his pension and other purpose went to the Siliguri Court More Branch by issuing a cheque intended to withdraw Rs. 49,000/- for the purpose of his day to day required expenditure and medical treatment costs and it was his bare need to withdraw the said money from his account. But the cheque was dishonored by the Bank Official on the ground of mismatch of signature. While, when the respondent again came to deposit to the said bank for depositing Rs. 10,000/- cash to his grandson’s account, then the same official of the SBI, Siliguri Court More Branch has refused to receive the said cash on the same ground of mismatch signature of the depositor while the said amount ultimately was deposited by Mr. Chatterjee in Hakimpara Branch of SBI. The relevant documents produced in this case speak that the complainant maintains the SBI account at SBI, Siliguri Court More Branch Bearing Account No. 20052097434 while SBI, Siliguri Court More Branch in response to the legal notice of the complainant it is mentioned that the said account was maintained at Hakimpara Branch and not at Siliguri Court More Branch. This reply of legal notice on the part of the bank vide CM/17-18/36 dated 25.05.2017 clearly speaks that the bank has intentionally harassed a bonafide customer who happens to be a senior citizen suffering various ailments and he was dire need to have withdraw some money from his own account for his medical treatment cost. This attitude on the part of the Bank Authority and the high handedness of the Bank Official is more than suffice to hold that the bank not only grossly violated the bank rules and norms but also rendered deficiency of service on the part of the banking system. So, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be convincing and the Commission finds no loop holes in the impugned order to go on any interference with the said order. Thus, the appeal devoids of any merit. Rather, after the installation of CBS system this type of harassment to a bonafide account holder is unwanted.

On the other hand, it is also established during the course of argument that in one occasion when the complainant visited the Siliguri Court Branch to withdraw Rs. 29,000/- from his account the cheque was dishonored for mismatch of signature while the said cheque was duly encashed from the Hakimpara Branch of SBI where the question of mismatch of signature did not raise. This one occasion also clearly indicates that the Siliguri Court Branch of SBI did not render proper service to a customer which tantamount to deficiency of service.

Thus, the considered view of this Commission is that the appellant has failed to prove their case and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

Hence It is ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. Forum under appeal is hereby confirmed.

A copy of this final order be supplied to the parties of appeal free of cost. This final order of this Commission be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Siliguri through e-mail.

If there is any order of interim basis by this Commission stands vacated.