The complainant’s case, in a nut shell, is that he is a senior citizen and an account holder i.e customer of State Bank of India, Hamiltonganj Branch for more than10 years having Account No.11235712409. He, on 03/08/2016 went to the O.P/SBI, Hamiltonganj Branch to deposit some money amounting to Rs. 16,500/-(Rupees sixteen thousand and five hundred only) in his above mentioned account. But the Branch Manager instructed the complainant to deposit the said money by using the service of S.B.I KIOSK which is situated at Hamiltonganj.
Accordingly, the complainant went to the said O.P /SBI, KIOSK, Hamiltonganj to avail the service and deposited the said amount in his account. On going through the money transfer receipt which had been generated after the said transaction it is obvious that only Rs. 16,400/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and four hundred only) was transacted in his account in spite of Rs. 16,500/- and Rs. 100/- (one hundred) had been deducted as charge of that transaction. According to complainant, the said transaction was an inter home transaction which made between the home branch to home branch and this deduction of Rs. 100/- was illegal. He brought the said fact to the notice of SBI Kiosk’s official for illegal deduction but he could not be able to receive any justified answer of the said deduction.
Thereafter, the complainant went to the Office of S.B.I, Hamiltonganj Branch and orally conveyed his grievance to the Branch Manager and the Branch Manager admitted that the said deduction is illegal and he assured that he will take initiative to resolve the matter of deduction of the said charge amounting to Rs.100/-. As the Branch Manager of S. B.I, Hamiltonganj Branch did not take any measure to return the said charge, the complainant compelled to file written complaint before the Branch Manager on 06/08/2016 requesting him to take immediate intervention of the matter. But till date the said amount has not been credited in the account of complainant or the S.B.I has not given any explanation why the said charge has been deducted from the above mentioned transaction. The O.P/Bank illegally deducted the said charge which amounts to deficiency in service and as a result the complainant is passing his days in mental agony.
In the premises the complainant has prayed for return of the said charge amounting to Rs.100/- along with interest 18% per annum as well as Rs. 50,000/- only for mental agony suffered by complainant and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the notices and other expenses and also Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
In spite of receiving notice as per Track Report it shows that the notice was duly delivered upon the O.Ps but they did not turn up to contest the instant case. That’s why the case is proceeded exparte against the O.Ps.
The complainant in support of his case filed some documents viz Annexure ( I) ( money transaction receipt, Annexure- (ii) ( letter addressed to BranchManager,SBI,Hamiltonganj Branch dated 06/08/2016 sent by complainant ) , Annexure- (ii)i ( deposit slip dated 03/08/2016 ) , Annexure- (iv) ( ATM Customer Advice of S.B.I,Hamiltonganj ), Annexure-( v) ( Photocopy of pass book of S.B.I of complainant-4 sheets)
The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit which appears to be the reiterated version of complaint. The complainant has files written argument in respect of his case.
Heard the argument of Ld. Agent as advanced from the side of the complainant.amHaHH
In this context, the following points have necessarily come up for consideration to reach a just decision of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986?
- Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- To what other relief or reliefs, the complainant is entitled?
DECISIONS WITH REASON
Point No. 1 & 2
It appears from the complaint that the complainant is the customer of S.B.I, Hamiltonganj Branch whose A/C No. is 11235712409. More so, on scrutiny of Pass Book which photocopy has been attached herewith it appears that the said account is lying in the name of the complainant as well as another person Suraj Prakash Sharma (Joint account).
The incident as alleged by the complainant happened within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The claim of money as mentioned herein is within the jurisdiction of the pecuniary limit of this Forum. Moreover, the address of O.Ps goes to show that their business is going on within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
Therefore, on going through the record carefully and the evidence as adduced by the complainant no adverse material is revealed against the case of the complainant. We are convinced to hold that the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps u/s.2 (1)(d)(ii) of C.P.Act,1986 and this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant case. Consequently these points are decided infavour of the complainant.
POINT NO. 3 AND 4
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and discussion.
We have meticulously gone through the evidence of the complainants and the documents filed by the complainant.
The bone of contention of the complainant’s case is that, he deposited some money amounting to Rs.16, 500/- on 03/08/2016 in SBI-KIOSK at Hamiltonganj which falls within the home branch of S.B.I, Hamiltonganj Branch. But actually Rs.16, 400/- has been transacted in his account and Rs.100/- has been deducted as charge of that transaction. The complainant is an account holder of S.B.I, Hamiltonganj being Account No.11235712409 which he maintained more or less 10 years. According to complainant, he intended to deposit the said money in the said account in S.B.I, Hamiltonganj. But on that date according to said Branch Manager’s direction he went to S.B.I- KIOSK, Hamiltonganj to despost it to avoid rush of bank.
It has been contended by complainant that he transacted the said amount in SBI-KIOSK and Rs.100/- was deducted from the principal amount i.e Rs.16, 500/-. The complainant met the Branch Manager of S.B.I,Hamiltonganj but no justifiable answer was given by him for illegal deduction of said amount but he admitted the fact that Rs.100/- was deducted. Subsequently, the complainant on 06/08/2016 deposited a letter to give information regarding the deduction of said Rs.100/- as charges, but no response was made by Branch Manager, S.B.I, Hamiltonganj Branch.
The complainant has deposited the photocopy of money transaction receipt of SBI- KIOSK Banking, the letter deposited by complainant before Branch Manager,SBI, Hamiltonganj dated 06/08/2016, the photocopy of pay in slip. ATM- customer advice and the photocopy of Pass Book of account No.11235712409 of SBI,Hamiltonganj Branch which have been marked as Annexure – I, ii, iii, iv and v respectively.
Fact remains that this case is being heard in exparte as the O.Ps viz. Branch Manager, S.B.I,Hamiltonganj and Branch Manager, S.B.I – KIOSK, Hamiltonganj did not turn up to contest the instant case.
The complainant has claimed to return the said charge amounting to Rs.100/- along with 18% interest per annum. The complainant has also prayed Rs.50, 000/- for mental agony and Rs.10000/- towards litigation cost and Rs.1000/- towards cost of legal notice and other expenses.
Now, it is to be considered by us that whether this District Forum is entitled to pass any order as the complainant has prayed for in this case. Practically, is there any deficiency in service of O.Ps or unfair trade practice?. On perusal of Kiosk Banking money transfer Receipt (Annexure – i) it appears that an amount was in transaction Rs.16, 400/- (Principal amount) and charge has been deducted amounting to Rs.100/- on 08/03/2016 in KIOSK I.D and K.O named as mentioned therein. Actually no deposit receipt by Kiosk Banking has been filed. It is not ascertained from the said receipt whether the complainant had deposited the said amount of money by himself on the alleged date. It is explicitly clear from the said transaction that an amount of Rs.100/- was deducted from the automatic machine of KIOSK from an account. The service charge which deducted is an obligation imposed by its authority upon the subjects who are left no option but to pay. Such payment cannot be treated as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The charge as alleged has been deducted not at the whims of Branch Manager of S.B.I. The computerized charge has been automatically deducted from all the persons who are attached with the banking service. It is obscure to us where the money of Rs.100/-was deducted from the complainant’s account when pass book has no reflection of it (Annexure-v). But it is generally deducted from all the accounts of persons, who are availing KIOSK. There is also no reflection that the complainant has averred his grievance before the appropriate authority above the rank of Branch Manager of S.B.I. The complainant in faulty way without making any enquiry deposited the money as alleged. The charges are being deducted according to R. B.I, Guide Lines.
In our considered view, the case cannot be deemed to constitute any deficiency in service on the part of the bank. The bank’s Kiosk transactions are bio-metrically secured with the operating system and an internet enabled P C based technology. If any mistake sustained by the customer, then the money would be re-deposited. Bank’s act cannot be said to be deficient. The bank follows the direction of Reserve Bank of India. It cannot be said that there was deficiency in service of concerned bank and related Kiosk. It is true that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to deal with and decide the dispute relating to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice but at the same time, it must not be lost sight that the Forum is required to consider whether the dispute raised is justifiable or not. Now, it cannot be held that the transaction constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
Therefore, having heard the Ld. Agent for the complainant in exparte and on going through the materials on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the complainant’s case cannot be allowed. We are unable to give any relief to the complainant as sought for.
Thus, these points are decided against the complainant.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the CC No. 39 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this Final Order be supplied to the concerned parties by hand/be sent under registered post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me-
