Judgment dated 17-06-2016

            This is a complaint made by one Mrs. Monorama Sharma of 3, Mehar Ali Mondal Street, Kolkata-70 027 against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mominpore, 10/1H, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S. Alipore, Kolkata-700027.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a senior citizen. OP the Branch Manager of State Bank of India. Complainant has her pension account in the Branch. Complainant was provided with ATM Card which got damaged with the laps of time. Complainant applied for another ATM Card. OP deducted Rs.204/- as replacement charge.

            Since Complainant did not receive the ATM Card, she visited OP’s office where she was told that ATM Card has already been dispatched vide speed post. Complainant did not receive it. Again Complainant visited where she was asked to contact Toll Free Number.

            Complainant received ATM Card but did not receive Pin. Complainant was advised to deposit Rs.55/- for Pin Number. On this Complainant issued a letter and e-mail to hand over the Pin but of no use. So Complainant filed this complaint for getting the Pin and also refund of Rs.204/- with 18% interest and also for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- .                                                                                                                

            OP filed written version and denied all the allegations. OP has further submitted that Pin number is sent from different office and so miscommunication might have taken place. Further OP has submitted that question of granting compensation and litigation costs do not arise. So OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP has filed questionnaire which has been replied by the Complainant. OP has also filed affidavit-in-chief against which Complainant has filed questionnaire. OP has filed affidavit-in-reply. Both sides have filed written argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of prayer portion of the complaint it appears that Complainant has sought for a direction upon the OP to hand over Pin Number to the Complainant and also refund of Rs.204/- with 18% interest.

            At the time of argument Ld. Advocate for OP submitted that his client is willing to hand over the Pin Number but Complainant is not receiving it and this case has been filed only for compensation and litigation cost.

            On the contrary Ld. Advocate for Complainant submitted that OP intentionally harassed the Complainant. Whatever may be the circumstances it is the duty of the OP to hand over Pin to the Complainant which OP perhaps was eager to filing of this case.

            So it is clear that OP has duty to hand over Pin to the Complainant. However, refund of Rs.204/- with 18% interest p.a. cannot be allowed because that appears to be the replacement charge.

            On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief of respective parties questionnaire, affidavit-in-reply and written argument it appears that both the sides have asserted their respective cases. However, on perusal of this it appears that the conduct of OP a little bit has remained delaying in handing over the Pin but such conduct does not warrant that Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- .

            Taking all the circumstances into the background if compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- is awarded justice would be served.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

            CC/53/2015 and the same is allowed in part on contest.

            OP is directed to hand over Pin to the Complainant within one month of this order. OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/-as litigation cost to the Complainant within the said period in default, amount shall carry interest @12% p.a.