Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/27/2018

P.Sivalakshmi, W/o P.Hari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, SBI - Opp.Party(s)

P.Govindaswamy Reddy

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 21.04.2018

Order Date:23.01.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.27/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Smt.P.Sivalakshmi,

W/o. P. Hari,

D.No.4-121/1, Srinivasa Mangapuram,

Narasingapuram Post,

Chandragiri Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The Branch Manager,

            State Bank of India (State Bank of Hyderabad),

            Plot No.161, Near M.R.Palli Circle,

            Gunakala Heights,

            New Balaji Colony Branch,

            AIR Bye Pass Road,

            M.R.Palli,

            Tirupati – 517 502.

 

2.         The Regional Manager,

            State Bank of India (SBH),

            Hero Honda Gopal Buildings,

            Old Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.

 

3.         The Zonal Manager,

            State Bank of India (SBH),

            Hero Honda Gopal Buildings,

            Old Renigunta Road,          

            Tirupati.                                                                          …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 09.01.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.P.Govindaswamy Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Sri.K.S.Vasu, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and physical strain to the complainant due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and to award Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation.   

            2.  The complaint allegations are as follows:- The complainant is carrying on business in the name and style of ‘United Service Consultancy’ relating to supply of workmen on outsource basis to various organizations in various places namely Kuppam, Srikalahasti, Nellore, and Kavali etc. On the occasion of Sankranti festival holidays, the complainant sent cheque dt:13.01.2017 for Rs.2,35,000/- being the remuneration of 38 workers, to SBI, New Balaji Colony, AIR Bye Pass Road, Tirupati, through her brother-in-law P.Eswara Raja Sekhar, along with the details of the workers to whom the amounts have to be paid towards their remuneration through RTGS from the said branch. The head cashier of opposite party No.1 acknowledged the RTGS statement. But on the same day at 12 noon, complainant’s brother-in-law was called by opposite party No.1 branch, to come to the branch, to discuss on RTGS issue. The opposite party No.1 expressed their inability to do RTGS transaction stating that there was no sufficient staff in opposite party branch. On the request made by complainant’s brother-in-law that the workers are poor persons and are eagerly waiting for financial support to celebrate the festival, opposite party No.1 agreed to consider the request on humanitarian grounds. In the meanwhile, complainant received several phone calls from workers stating that they did not receive any amount till 16.00 hours on 13.01.2017, and started their agitation by stopping the work at Kuppam, Srikalahasti, Nellore and Kavali etc. The complainant had sent her staff to all work places with money, to distribute the money among the workers, and accordingly money was distributed to the workers. But the complainant suffered mental agony in securing the amount by spending Rs.2,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- at Srikalahasti, Kuppam, Nellore and Kuppam respectively towards to and fro charges for the staff, who were deputed to various places. On 17.01.2017, complainant had withdrawn the amount from opposite party branch to solve the problem. Since the date of opening account, complainant facing problems from opposite party branch. Sometimes opposite party bank issued DDs and directing to take DDs at S.V.Nagar branch, on the ground that there was no staff and non-functioning of printers. S.V.Nagar branch used to issue DDs belatedly, as complainant account is not in S.V.Nagar branch. Swiping machine facility at New Balaji Colony branch is frequently getting out of order. She opened account at New Balaji Colony branch, since there are less customers in that branch when compared to other branches, in order to get her transactions done quickly. The complainant made a complaint before opposite party No.2 by way of letter dt:17.01.2017, for which AGM of the bank replied on 19.01.2017 stating that the request of the complainant cannot be complied, as there are errors in the list submitted by her for transfer of amount. Further, they directed her to open current account with internet facility to perform such transactions or avail internet facility for the savings bank account of the complainant. The complainant issued suitable reply on 01.03.2017 stating that single cheque can be accepted to transfer funds for self bank accounts and other bank accounts. She also issued legal notice dt:24.11.2017 calling upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony to her. The opposite parties did not reply to the notice. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.1 filed the written version and the same was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3. The opposite parties contended as follows – At the outset, the specific allegations made against them in para Nos.3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are denied. The averments in the complaint that the complainant’s brother-in-law approached opposite party No.1 with cheque for Rs.2,35,050/- and list of workers to whom cheque amount has to be disbursed towards remuneration, that the head cashier of the bank acknowledged the list and that later opposite party No.1 bank refused to comply with the request of the complainant, to transfer the money to the workers and thus caused inconvenience to the complainant due to which she had suffered much pain and difficulty in securing the amount and sent her staff to various places to pay remuneration to the workers are denied. It is submitted that complainant is having S.B.Account with opposite party No.1 bank, and the same is meant for personal use of the complainant. She cannot use S.B.Account for business purpose. As per the admissions made in the complaint, the complainant is using her S.B.Account for the transactions under M/s. United Services Consultancy, which is a wrong procedure. In S.B.Account, one cannot transfer amount to multiple accounts by using single cheque, that too for her business purpose. Multiple transactions on one go is not permissible in S.B.Account. Further the complainant ought to have availed internet facility to make transfer of funds to various persons. The complainant wants to put the S.B.Account to wrong usage, which cannot be permitted. She ought to have opened Current Account for doing business transactions, as S.B.Account is intended to inculcate the saving habit in the customers and shall be opened for personal savings purpose only and not for doing business transactions. It is further submitted that complainant’s brother-in-law, through whom the complainant has submitted the cheque to the bank, has been clearly informed by the branch officials that it is not possible to accept a single cheque for multiple business transactions, and separate cheques have to be submitted to the bank for each transaction. It is so especially in view of the fact that at the relevant time, it was not possible to do multiple and bulk RTGS transactions in SB accounts and the branch staff have to do the same manually for each transaction. It was assured that separate cheques will be submitted to the bank, but the person did not turn up later on. Hence, the bank or its officials cannot be blamed for the fault of the complainant in not issuing separate cheques requested by the bank. The allegation that opposite party bank has expressed its inability stating that there was no sufficient staff in the branch is vehemently denied, and the same was concocted by the complainant for the purpose of this complaint. The complainant herself admitted that there were mistakes in the list of account numbers of the beneficiaries and the contention of the complainant that even the amounts transferred to incorrect account numbers would come back to the complainant’s account and it would not be a big problem is not correct. The accounts of some of the beneficiaries are with other banks also and the accuracy of the account numbers of other banks cannot be ensured by the opposite party bank. It is further submitted that in case of furnishing wrong account numbers, the amounts will be credited into the accounts of some other non-beneficiaries, to whom the transfers are not intended and then it will become difficult for the opposite party bank to get refund of those amounts. The opposite party therefore never committed deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            4.  The complainant filed evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. However, they have filed ‘know your customer guidelines’ of their bank, in support of their contention that the savings bank account could not be used for business transactions.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?

            6.  Point:-  Ex.A1 is front page of pass book of the complainant and it shows that the account is individual account of the complainant and it is savings bank account. This fact is admitted by the complainant. It is also admitted fact that complainant is carrying on business under the name and style United Service Consultancy, relating to supply of persons on outsourcing basis to various organizations. The case of the complainant is that she sent a cheque on 13.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.2,35,050/- through her brother-in-law, by name P.Eswara Raja Sekhar, to opposite party No.1 bank along with statement of 38 workers with their account numbers and amounts to be transferred in their accounts, requesting the bank to transfer the funds, as per the statement and that her request was not considered by the opposite party No.1 bank. Her contention is that they refused to comply her request on the ground that the bank is under- staffed. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 contended that bank rules will not permit the customers to use their individual accounts to do business transactions through RTGS and that they have to open current account for such purpose. Ex.A2 is a cheque for Rs.2,35,050/- signed by the complainant along with the list of 38 workers, to whom the remunerations have to be paid out of the cheque amount. Ex.A3 is letter addressed by the complainant dt:13.01.017 to the Branch Manager, opposite party No.1, requesting to transfer the funds, as mentioned in the list. Ex.A4 is letter addressed by the complainant to Regional Manager dt:17.01.2017 stating that though the head cashier of opposite party No.1 acknowledged the RTGS statement sent by her, request was not considered by the bank, and the Manager of the bank informed her brother-in-law about non-compliance of her request. It is clear from Ex.A4 that the main allegation of complainant is that the bank has refused to do RTGS transaction through her S.B.Account. Ex.A5 is letter dt:19.01.2017 addressed by the AGM of the bank to complainant stating that as per the system, branch cannot remit / send the credits as desired by the complainant in a single cheque and further one of the account numbers mentioned in the list is incorrect (624203662553), and further it is advised to complainant to open a current account with internet facility to perform business related transactions or avail internet facility for her S.B.Account, and further it is stated that branch is issuing DD/BCs continuously and GCC provided to the branch is working, and branch is advised to provide all the banking services to the complainant without fail. Ex.A6 is letter addressed by complainant on 01.03.2017 to the Zonal Manager, SBH, Tirupati, complaining about her bitter experience with SBH, New Balaji Colony branch, Tirupati. Ex.A7 is letter addressed by the Branch Manager, SBI, M.R.Palle branch to complainant dt:30.08.2017 stating that SBH is merged with SBI. Ex.A8 is legal notice dt:24.11.2017 issued by complainant to opposite parties      1 to 3 demanding compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony due to deficiency in service on their part.

            7. The counsel for complainant vehemently argued that though the complainant was having account in opposite party No.1 branch and they did not render services when the complainant approached the bank with cheque for Rs.2,35,050/- along with list of workers for transfer of funds through her account and thus committed deficiency in service. In the written arguments filed by the opposite party it is contended that savings bank account is intended for personal use and not for business transactions and therefore the cheque presented by the complainant along with the list of workers for transfer of amounts to their respective accounts cannot be processed. On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, it is admitted that complainant requested for RTGS transaction through her individual savings bank account. It is admitted that the cheque is intended to pay the remuneration of the workers. It is admitted that the complainant is carrying on business under name and style United Service Consultancy for the purpose of supplying workers on outsourcing basis to various organizations. It is not disputed that 38 workers names shown in the list are supplied by the said company and the cheque amount is intended for paying their remunerations. Their own document i.e. Ex.A1 shows that account opened by complainant is savings bank account and not current account. Further it is clear from Ex.A5 that business transactions cannot be done through S.B.Account and complainant was suitably advised to open current account with internet facility to perform commercial transactions or to avail internet facility for her S.B.Account. Know Your Customer Guidelines under the caption ‘Operations in the Account’ reads as follows – “Savings Bank account is essentially a facility to build up savings and hence must not be used as a Current Account. Bank may close an account should it have any reason to believe that the account holder has used her / his account for a purpose for which it is not allowed”.  It is therefore clear from ‘Know Your Customer Guidelines that S.B.Account cannot be used for commercial transactions and RTGS transactions have to be done only through current account. Further it is admitted that some errors have occurred in the account numbers of the workers mentioned in the list. As rightly contended by the opposite party counsel that, if the amounts are credited into wrong account numbers and in future if the complainant claims refund, it will be very difficult for the opposite party bank to refund the amounts. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.

            8.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                              

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 23^rd day of January, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. P. Sivalakshmi (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: V. Balaji (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Bank Pass Book issued by in State Bank of Hyderabad, New Balaji Colony Branch, Tirupati in favour of complainants.
	List of workers along with SBH, New Balaji Colony Branch, Tirupati cheque bearing No.504062, Dt: 13.01.2017(Original Copies).
	List of workers acknowledged by the State Bank of Hyderabad, Tirupati filed by the complainant (Attested true copy). Dt: 13.01.2017.
	Complaint submitted by the complainant to the Regional Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Tirupati. Dt: 17.01.2017.
	Photo copy of reply given by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Tirupati. Dt: 19.01.2017.
	Reply given by the complainant to the Zonal Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Tirupati along with Acknowledgement filed by complainant         (True copy). Dt: 01.03.2017.
	Branch Integration-Letter given by the State Bank of India, Tirupati regarding the merger of State Bank of India Associate Banks with SBI. Dt: 30.08.2017.
	Legal Notice issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3 along with acknowledgement of 2 and 3 along with postal receipts filed by the complainant. Dt: 24.11.2017.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-       

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

 

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.