DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. CC 220 of 30.5.2016
Decided on: 23.11.2016
Harbans Lal Gupta son of Sh.Prabhu Dayal, resident of H.No.303, Street No.1-A/11, Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India, Chhoti Barandari Branch, Patiala through its Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Harbans Lal, complainant in person.
Sh.Vaibhav Mangla,Advocate, counsel
for Opposite Party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Harbans Lal Gupta has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To fine the OP with a sum of Rs.35,000/-
- To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is 68 years old, retired Central Govt. Employee having pension account No.10566678932 and locker No.126 in State Bank of India. That for the last three years, the OP is harassing him by deducting extra locker charges/service charges. It is alleged that locker charges are deducted by the Bank from the customer’s account once in a year i.e. in April. The OP deducted locker charges twice i.e. Rs.1019/- and Rs.1000/- on 2.4.2014. On his protest, the OP refunded him Rs.1000/-.In the next year i.e.2015, on 2.4.2015, the OP deducted Rs.1019/-as locker charges from his account. Thereafter on 20.8.2015, the OP again deducted locker charges of Rs.1038/- On his intimation, the OP refunded himRs.1038/- on 3.9.2015, thereby causing him a loss of interest for the period from 20.8.2015 to 20.9.2015.In the year 2016, he deposited a cheque of Rs.745/- on 3.3.2016 in his account. The OP deducted Rs.171.75 as service charges on this meager amount. On his protest, the Op refunded him Rs.171.75.In the next year i.e. 30.4.2016, the OP deducted Rs.1910-50 as locker charges. On his protest, the Op refunded Rs.510/- on 4.5.2016 and for the remaining extra charges of Rs.381.50, the Op intimated that the same have been deducted on account of increase in locker rent charges from the year 2014.The OP never bothered to intimate to its customers regarding increase in rent of locker. Thus on account of deficiency of service on the part of the OP, he has suffered from mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed its written version. It is admitted that the complainant is maintaining pension account as well as locker with it. It is further admitted that the amount was wrongly debited from the account of the complainant by the computer system of the bank and after coming to the notice, the mistake was immediately rectified and the amount was refunded to the complainant. It is also admitted that the same mistake was again occurred. It is submitted that these mistakes are computer generated mistakes as these days all the banking transactions are being executed through computers and commands have already been given to the system. All the entries of debit and credit regarding interest are executed through computer generated system in accordance with the commands given to them. It is submitted that though the command of rectifying the earlier mistake was given but again due to some technical snag, the amount was debited twice and was refunded immediately to the complainant after coming into its notice. Its officials tendered an unconditional apology to the complainant. It is submitted that the excess amount was charged on account of increate in locker rent. However, some amount was refunded to the complainant. It is submitted that as per the agreement, in case of increase of locker rent, the same need not to be informed to the complainant. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed on account of the complainant seeks priority services which some times could not be provided to him on account of heavy rush in the branch. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C15 and closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidenceEx.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.S.K.Wadhwa, Chief Manager, of the OP and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant, the Ld. counsel for the OP and have gone through the written arguments filed by the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The complainant has alleged that in the month of April,2014, OP deducted locker charges twice. He brought this fact into the knowledge of the OP bank. It realized its mistake and refunded the extra amount deducted from his account. In the year 2015, it again committed the same mistake and refunded the extra amount charged on account of locker charges. In this regard, he filed a complaint before the RBI. The concerned official of the OP Bank tendered written apology and he withdrew the complaint against the OP. Thereafter on 3.3.2016 he deposited a cheque of Rs.745/- issued by BNSL for refund of security amount. Out of the said amount, the OP bank arbitrarily deducted Rs.171.75 as service charges. When he protested, the OP bank refunded the said amount on 15.3.2016.On 30.4.2016, OP bank deducted Rs.1910.50 as locker charges for the year 2016, instead of actual locker rent of Rs.1019/-. When he protested, OP on 4.5.2016 credited an amount of Rs.510/- in his account and intimated him that an amount of Rs.381.50 has been deducted on account of increase in locker rent since 2014.The OP never supplied any document regarding increase in the locker rent. Due to said act of the OP, he has suffered a lot of inconvenience. Thus the OP bank is deficient in providing the services.
7. The Ld. counsel for the OP submitted that due to technical snag in the computer the rent charges were deducted twice. However, on coming to know the mistake, the overcharged amount was immediately refunded to the complainant. Even the excess amount deducted on account of service charges and locker rent for the year 2016 were also refunded to the complainant. Hence the OP cannot be said to be deficient in providing its service.
8. It may be stated that when in the year 2014, the complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of the concerned official, regarding debiting of locker charges twice, the said official should have given the appropriate command to the commuter, so that in future the computer may not debit locker charges twice from his account. But the concerned official by not doing so, was negligent in performing his/her duties. Not only this , the OP has also committed a mistake by wrongly deducting Rs.171.75 as service charges for realizing the cheque amounting to Rs.745/- and by overcharging the amount of Rs.510/- on account of locker rent for the year 2016. Thus, we do not hesitate to conclude that the OP was deficient in providing services to the complainant. Due to said act of the OP, the complainant has undergone a lot of inconvenience and thus, he is certainly entitled for compensation. Taking these facts into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that end of justice would be met, if a sum of Rs.10,000/- be awarded to the complainant. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- the complainant . However, the OP is at liberty to recover the said amount from the official(s) concerned, who has not performed his/her duty diligently and adequately. The order be complied by the Op within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:23.11.2016 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
