Date of Filing                      :    15 January, 2021.

Date of Judgement             :    13 September, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,   Member.

                   This case arises when Smt. Kumkum Chattaraj, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act) against the (1) the State Bank of India and (2) the Branch Manager, SBI, both of Howrah Railway Station branch situated at Howrah Railway Station, hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of maturity amount to the complainant.

                   Facts remain, in short, as emerged from the complaint petition and the annexed documents attached therein, are that the complainant opened an S. T. D. R. having account no. 31130666889 by investing ₹75,000.00 on 01/04/2010 for 10 (ten) years at the branch of the OP–1.  The date of maturity of this S. T. D. R. was fixed on 01/04/2020 and the maturity amount was stated to be ₹1,57,676.00.  On 13/04/2020, i. e. after the maturity date complainant requisitioned to the OP–1 to transfer the maturity amount to her savings bank account being no. 11513009181 maintained in the same branch.  But, as the complainant alleged, the OPs failed to comply with her requisition.  Again on 10.06.2020 she made a written request to transfer the maturity amount to her savings bank account and this time also the OPs did not comply with her requests.  She then sent a legal notice to the OPs on 09/11/2020 through her Ld. Advocate requesting them to transfer the maturity amount to her savings account within 15 days which also yielded no fruitful result thereby causing deficiency in service from the part of the OPs for which she approached before this Commission with her present complaint praying to direct the OPs to (1) transfer the maturity amount of the S. T. D. R. in question by the OPs to her savings bank account, (2) to pay present bank interest on the maturity amount till that amount is transferred to her savings bank account and (3) litigation cost.

Complainant filed copies of (i) the Term Deposit Advice issued by the OPs for the S. T. D. bearing account no. 31130666889, (ii) letter dated 10/06/2020 issued by the complainant and (ii) the legal notice dated 9/11/2020 issued through her advocate as annexure to the complaint petition.

                   Notices were served upon the OPs, after admission, to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OPs appeared and filed their written version.  Then the complainant filed her Evidence on Affidavit through her Ld. Lawyer.  Later, the OPs could not file any questionnaire and Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed her Brief Notes on Argument. During scrutiny of the complaint petition and other documents before finalising this case we noticed that the complainant has erroneously stated her savings bank account number. Consequently the saving bank account number has been corrected through the amendment, but in response the OPs did not turn up further with their additional written version.  We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case.  We have to decide whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which she is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

                   Factual matrix emerged from the complaint

                   It’s a fact that the complainant deposited ₹75,000/- on 01/04/2010 for opening a Fixed Deposit Account for 10 years and the OPs issued a TERM DEPOSIT ADVICE confirming the details of the (invested) amount of ₹75,000.00 held in deposit with them in the Scheme: STD-GEN PUB-IND-BY10-INR, with Account No. 31130666889 for the term of 10 years with interest @7.5% .  Mode of operation was written as: SINGLE. The maturity amount written therein WAS ₹1,57,676.00.  Complainant alleged that, which is also reflected also from the letter dated 10/06/2020 and 09/11/2020, her repeated attempts of the maturity amount of this Term Deposit being transferred to her Saving Bank Account No. 11513009181 maintained with the same branch yielded no result as the OPs failed to transfer the maturity amount to her Savings Account.  Having no alternative available to her, the complainant then filed the instant complaint before this Commission.

                   Rival Submissions:

                   In their written version OPs categorically denied and disputed the statements and allegations made in the complaint petition.  They said in the written version that ‘the case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties’.  They emphasized ‘that Mritunjoy Mukherjee and Tanima Mukherjee both of 30/3/2, Narayan Roy Road, Kolkata – 700 008 are proper and necessary parties to the case without whom the proper adjudication of the case cannot be done’.   In Paragraph No. 9 of their written version, the OPs stated that:  ‘The said amount had to be transferred to the account of the complainant being SB A/c No.11513009184 (the correct A/C. No. should be 11513009181), but mistakenly transferred to the account of Mritunjoy Mukherjee & Tanima Mukherjee both of 30/3/2, Narayan Roy Road, Kolkata – 700 008 to whom the opposite parties requested to return back the amount enabling the opposite parties to disburse the same to the proper customer/the complainant. The said Mritunjoy Mukherjee & Tanima Mukherjee assured the Bank that they will co-operate in the matter of settlement of the instant dispute and as soon as they will refund the said amount the Bank will settle the above said matter as soon as possible.’ [Emphasis supplied.]

                   The above-noted Para-9 of the written version filed by the OPs itself clearly states that the main reason of their inability to refund the maturity amount to the customer/complainant confines in the fact that the Bank Branch has ‘mistakenly transferred’ the said amount to another account with which the complainant is not connected at all and it is clear that the complainant has no role in such mistaken transfer.  The complainant has no relation in any way with the account in which the maturity amount has been transferred. The OPs claimed that Mritunjoy Mukherjee & Tanima Mukherjee should be ‘proper and necessary parties’ in this case whom the complainant failed to include.  But, according to their written version, they themselves ‘mistakenly transferred’ the maturity amount to the account of Mritunjoy Mukherjee & Tanima Mukherjee and because of their fault the complainant can never be blamed. It is the utter negligence of the OPs causing severe deficiency of ‘service’, as is defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the OPs to the ‘Consumer’, as is defined under Section 2(7) of the Act, here the complainant.  The complainant cannot be blamed for such transfer, as the OPs failed to substantiate their claim that this case is bad in law.  Rather, the OPs tried to avoid their basic responsibility to a customer/complainant they had undertaken.  The OPs stated that ‘mistakenly’ such transfer has been occurred, thus they tried to safeguard their deficiency in rendering proper service to the complainant as well as they tried to seclude the employee who caused such deficient work.  Moreover, the complainant can never be expected to wait for indefinite time to get back the maturity amount until and unless said Mritunjoy Mukherjee & Tanima Mukherjee refunded the amount transferred to the O.Ps..  It is the utter negligence done by the OPs for which the complainant suffered much and in no way the complainant is expected to suffer further for the sheer negligence of the OPs.

                   Thus in our view that due to deficiency in service of the OPs the complainant has not received the maturity amount of ₹1,57,676/- payable to her on the date of maturity.  The complainant has followed the usual process as per norms of the OP bank to get back the maturity amount after the maturity date and the OPs failed to pay due diligence in transferring the maturity amount to the complainant’s savings bank account lying with them.  Considering all aspects we think the OPs are liable to refund the maturity amount of ₹1,57,676/- as on 01/04/2020 by transferring the same to the complainant’s savings account together with a simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with effect from the date of maturity till realisation.  OPs are liable to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost as she has been compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get her grievance be redressed.

                   Hence, it is

ORDERED

                   that the Complaint Case bearing No. CC/16/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties.

                   The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant ₹1,57,676.00 along with a simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on this amount with effect from the maturity date, 01/04/2020, till the date of this order within 45 days failing which the entire sum shall carry 9% simple interest per annum till full and final realisation. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay ₹5,000.00 to the complainant as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.

                   Let a copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

                   Member.