C. C.  Case No.  7   of  2023

    Hemam Ratan Singh, aged 30 years, S/o. (L) Hemam Amuba  Singh,  a resident of Khumujamba Meitei  Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churanchandpur District, Manipur.
                            ..... Complainant.
        - VERSUS -
1.      State Bank of India, Churachandpur Branch, through its Branch Manager at Churachandpur Bazar Tiddim Road, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churanchandpur District, Manipur-795128, email : rm.rboimp@sbi.co.in
2.      State Bank of India, Regional Business Office,Imphal Through its General Manager at Sanakhwa Yaima Kollup, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001 email : rm.rboimp@sbi.co.in and two others.
. . . Opposite parties.

                PRESENT
1. Shri Y. Lokendro Singh, President
2. Smt. S. Shadhana Devi, Member
3. Shri S. Devananda Singh, Member

For the complainant       :    M. Ajit Kevin Singh, L. Nikita Devi, M.                        Chittaranjan Singh Advocates
For OP Nos. 1 & 2      :    Nemo
For OP Nos. 3 & 4     :    Leo Rommel S., Dayanand Singh, Sapam                        Devan Singh, Ch. Engneisiok Aimol, Kh.                        Imran Shah, Advocates.
Date of hearing                  : 01-03-2024
Date of Judgement           : 04-03-2024


ORDER

1.    It happened on 3rd  May, 2023 the complainant’s House Building and other properties were fully damaged/destroyed due to the ethnic clash in Manipur. The said properties were fully insured under General Bharat Griha Raksha  from damaging and other liabilities with the OP. No. 4 being Policy No. 0000000031163741 dated 04-11-2022 for a period of 10 (ten) years i.e from 31-10-2022 to 30-10-2032. The sad news of loss of properties was recieved by the complainant and accordingly a complaint was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Nambol Police Station about the above said lost properties.
2.    The complainant has informed to the OP. Nos. 3 & 4 about the incident and claimed the insurance. The OP. Nos. 3 & 4 have approved and settled the insurance claim for an amount of Rs. 35,84,800/- only and the said amount of Rs. 35,84,800/- was transferred/credited to the Account No. 20291783588 lying in the SBI Branch, Churachandpur of the complainant.
3.    The said amount was debited by the OP. No. 1 without informing the complainant. However, the OP. Nos. 1 & 2 refused to settle the matter. It amounts to mala fide service of the OP. Nos. 1 & 2. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.
4.    On summons, the OP. Nos. 1 & 2 did not appear even though summons were recieved on 16-01-2024 and 03-01-2024 respectively. The OP. Nos. 3 & 4 appeared by filing their vakalatnama. They had also filed their written statement. We have given reasonable chances/opportunities to the OP. Nos. 1 & 2.
5.     From the above pleadings,  issues were not framed. However from the above pleadings, the points for determination emerged as under :
    (i)     Whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act ?
    (ii)     Whether the complainant had insured his house and other properties             under SBI General Bharat Griha Raksha  from damaging and other             liabilities with the Insurance Company i.e OP. Nos. 3 & 4  or not ?
    (iii)     Whether the OP. No. 1 had debited a sum of Rs. 35,84,800/- from             the A/C of the complainant ?
            If so, there was any deficiency of service on the part of the             O.P.  No. 1 and 2 or any of them?
     (iv)    Whether the complainant is entitled the  reliefs claimed by him or             not ?     
6.    Heard the Ld counsel for both the complainant and the OP. Nos. 3 & 4. None appeared for the OP. Nos. 1 & 2 even on the last date of hearing. Written argument was also filed by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Order to be proceeded ex-parte against the OP. Nos. 1 & 2.    
7.    Regarding point for determination No. 1:- The complainant has an account in the SBI Churachandpur and availed banking service. As per section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the term service could be understand in two ways (i) any description which is made available to potential users; (ii) Certain  particulars kinds of activities such as banking; financing; insurance; transport; processing; supply of electrical or  other energy; telecom; boarding; lodging; housing construction; entertainment; amusement; provision of news or other information. The complainant is included in the activities of second ways. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. within the meaning of consumer under section 2(7) and 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thus, this point for determination No. 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.     
8.    Regarding point for determination No. 2 :- In order to resolve the dispute, we have examined and perused the complaint with documents supported by affidavit and written statement with documents of the OP. Nos. 3 & 4 supported by affidavit.  After appreciating the material on record, it could however, be not disputed that the complainant’s House Building and other properties were insured under SBI General Bharat Griha Raksha Policy with the Insurance Company i.e. OP. Nos. 3 & 4 being Policy No.  0000000031163741 dated 04-11-2022 for a period of 10 (ten) years i.e from 31-10-2022 to 30-10-2032. The complainant had fully paid the insurance premium. It is also admitted by the OP. Nos. 3 & 4. Admitted facts need not be proved. Therefore, this point for determination No. 2 is decided in favour of the complainant.
9.    Regarding point for determination No. 3 :- The complainant’s house building and other insured properties were fully damaged/destroyed and looted due to the ethnic clash in Manipur on 3rd May, 2023 at 6.30 pm. The sad news of loss of properties was recieved by the complainant and accordingly a complaint was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Nambol Police Station about the above said lost properties. Accordingly Police authorities a case under FIR No. 127(05)2023 NBL-PS u/s 147/149/427/457 IPC.
10.    The complainant has claimed the insurance  being claim No. 1809353  to the OP. Nos. 3 & 4 for a sum of Rs. 46,89,691/-. Thereafter, the OP. Nos. 3 & 4 have enquired about loss based on the photographic and video evidences obtained by their surveyor. Accordingly the OP. Nos. 3 & 4  have assessed and settled loss at  Rs. 35,84,800/- only. The complainant had an account in the SBI Churachandpur being Account No. 20291783588. After recieving consent from the complainant, the OP. Nos. 3 & 4 have credited the said amount to the complainant’s said account on 30-08-2023.
11.    The Ld. counsel for the complainant further submits that the OP. Nos. 1 had debited the said insurance amount of Rs. 35,84,800/- without informing the complainant. It amounts to misappropriation of criminal breach of trust by the OP. No. 1 and liable to be refunded. The Bank has no right to take and adjust the amount without authority, knowledge or concurance of the complainant. The Apex Court held that the Bank has no right to refuse payment of the amount deposited to the complainant. The refusal is contrary to banking norms as held in Anumati v Punjab National Bank, 2004(5) Suppl. SCR 610. Considering all these facts discuss above, the OP. No. 1 had debited the insurance amount without the consent, knowledge  and authority of the complainant. There is ex facie deficiency in service on the part of OP. Nos. 1 & 2. Therefore, this point for determination No. 3 is decided in favour of the complainant.
12.    Regarding point for determination No. 4 :- It is evident from a reading all the documents along with the complaint and written statement of the OP. Nos. 3 & 4, SBI has a core banking syatem. Core banking syatem can be defined as a back-end system that processes banking transaction across the various branches of a bank. The system essentially includes deposite, loan and credit processing.  Therefore, it has the exclusive knowledge of the OP. No. 2 as to what happened by the OP. No. 1. Moreover, the OP. No. 2 is the regional Head office of the OP. No. 1.  The amount of the complainant has been taken away from his account  while it was in OP. No. 1’s custody.
13.    The complainant is the account holder of SBI Churachandpur i.e. the OP. No. 1 which is a branch of SBI RBO, Imphal i.e. the OP. No. 2 and under its control both of which are esatablished and functioning under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Hence OP. Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for the commission/ommission committed in the course of the conduct of their business.
14.    We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision. As a matter of fact, debiting all the amount of the complainant from his account could also be a wilful act. No lawful/appropriate explanation/ground has been brought on record by the OP. Nos. 1 & 2 to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers.  The OP. Nos. 1 & 2 have committed a criminal breach of trust of the worse type to the complainant. Instead of taking action against its officer for their default and wilful act, the OP. Nos. 1 & 2  remain silent so far. The complainant has certainly suffered a great deal of helplessness and disappointment and mental harassment. Time has come when it should be impressed upon every person employed in bank that the loss caused to consumer is not only a loss to an individual but also to the society at large as public confidence is being shaken to the detriment of the entire society. Thus, the OP. Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable.
15.    The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986 (now the Consumer Protection Act in 2019) with the sole aim to protect the interest of the consumer by providing a cheap and quick remedy. Therefore, the point for determination No. 4 is decided in favour of the complainant.
16.    Now the matter remains regarding the reliefs claim by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, the OP. Nos. 1 & 2  shall
(i)     refund the amount of Rs. 35,84,800/-  in favour of the complainant;
(ii)     compensate the complainant with an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for causing mental agony and loss to the complainant.
(iii)    pay a  sum of Rs. 20,000/- as the cost of the complaint.
(iv)    deposite  Rs.1,00,000/-  by way of punitive damages in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Commission to create more awareness among the consumers from getting deceived by the OP. Nos. 1 & 2.  
17.     The OP. Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to comply jointly/severally with above directions within 2 (two) weeks from the date of this order, failing which  it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order till payment and  the complainant is also at liberty to file criminal case against them for the offence punishable under section 72(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
    The complaint is allowed to the extent indicated.
    Announced.

Member.                Member.            President.