Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 333 / 2008

1)           Smt. Runa Sarkar,

11A, Gangadhar Banerjee Lane,

1)           The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Kidderpore Br.,

2)           The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Park Street.

3)           The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India Ltd.,

1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001.                           ---------- Opposite Party

Present :        Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

                        Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.

                        Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.     1 5    Dated 2 9 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 0 .

Complainant Smt. Runa Sarkar by filing a petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act as amended up to date alleging deficiency of service against the o.p., State Bank of India has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to pay the maturity amount of STDR no.016634 dt.26.9.05 for Rs.103040/- against account no.0129200918100 with effect from 24.7.02 along with interest at the fixed deposit rate, to pay compensation ofRs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony together with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation along with further order or orders as the forum may deem fit and proper.

          Fact of the case is that the complainant purchased STDR bearing no.016634 forRs.75059/- on 26/09/2005 and 13/11/06 as per Annecure-‘B’ from the o.p. no.1 State Bank of India, Kidderpore Branch which was issued by the o.p. on that date and the maturity value of the said STDR was Rs.103040/- due for payment on 24.7.06, annex-A. On or after the maturity date petitioner went to o.p. no.1 on 21/10/09 & 13/11/09 for the renewal of the said STDR. But to her utter surprise she was refused renewal or payment of the maturity value by the o.p. no.1 on the ground that the said STDR was already transferred in a different account which was not owned, opened and held by the complainant. The complainant also stated that the Branch manager of Kidderpore Branch, o.p. no.1 had written and remarked on the face of the said original STDR bearing no.016634 as “Auto renewed on 25.7.06 to new account no.0129200918101 and also “A/C no.0129200918101” closed on 16.10.06 and transferred to account no.01190013350 on date….”. According to the complainant this account i.e. 0190013350 was a fictitious account and the complainant never had such account. It is also a specific allegation of the complainant that she never gave any instruction for such transfer of the matured amount of the STDR in question to the joint account of the petitioner and her husband. Moreover, when the STDR in original was lying with the petitioner, how bank could transfer the amount without the production of the same or the written consent of the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that no signature was ever made by her, nor any application was ever made by her, neither any application was made by her for transferring the petitioner’s matured amount to any new or any other account. The petitioner was maintaining her own S.B A/C in the said bank being no.0129200918100. On being refused by the o.p. no.1 and also being confused, the petitioner wrote a letter dt.14.11.06 stating the full facts and wrong transferred to any imaginary fictitious account i.e. 0190013350 vide annex-B. The o.p. no.1 replied to that letter by their letter dt.16.11.06 and also on 19.2.07 stating therein that the matured amount was transferred to the savings bank account no.01190013350 jointly held by the petitioner and her husband on 16.10.06 as per the discharge given by the petitioner on the reverse of the STDR and as the maturity amount had already been credited to her S.B. A/C the question of further renewal of the STDR in question did not arise any more, vide annex-C (1 & 2). Thereafter the complainant wrote a letter dt.25.11.06 to the Manager C.G.R.C. SBI, Strand Road, Kolkata-1 stating therein all material facts, vide annex-D. It was replied by the General Manager (Development and Personal Banking), SBI, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata-1 through a letter dt.8.2.07, annex-E that her complaint was looked into with consultation with their zonal office, but till the filing of the case nothing fruitful came out. Thereafter the complainant also sent a legal notice dt.25.6.08, annex-F, which was also remained unreplied and finding no other way complainant filed this case on 25.9.08.

          Notices were served upon all the o.ps. Service upon the o.p. nos.2 and 3 came back with postal endorsement ‘refused’ which is as per law treated to be a good service. But none appears on behalf of the o.p. nos.2 and 3. No w/v was filed by either of them. The o.p. no.1 was also served with the notice of this forum as a/d card was shown by the complainant. On perusal of the record and close scrutiny, we find one vakalatnama was filed by Sri Pradip Kr. Biswas, Asstt. General Manager, SBI, SARC of 9B, Esplanade Row (East), Kolkata-69 in favour of Smt. Subhra Banerjee, advocate, but no w/v was filed by him. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte.

Decision with reasons:

          We perused the complaint petition along with annexures, the affidavit of examination in chief, BNA along with annex-G & H filed by the complainant. From the reverse page of annex-A, we find one condition incorporated by the o.p. SBI in the form of terms and conditions under the head “Term Deposit Receipt as well as Special Terms Deposit Receipt” wherefrom it appears “Deposit will be automatically renewed for a similar period on the due date if the bank does not receive any instructions to the contrary”. If the auto renewed was made on 25.7.06 to new account no.0129200918101, this should have been continued up to 48 months as per their condition said above. But the o.p. no.1 without receiving any written instruction from the complainant, on production of the duplicate STDR receipt, the o.p. no.1 credited the matured amount on 16.10.06 to the S.B. A/C 01190013350 by closing the renewed account bearing no.0129200918101 which was done on 25.7.06 on maturity of the STDR bearing no.0016634 against account no.0129200918100 which was solely held by the complainant. From annex-C(1) we find the bank has stated that as per the discharge given by the complainant on the reverse of the STDR the maturity amount was transferred to 01190013350 on 16.10.06. But they never filed any w/v neither they have filed any supporting documents. But we find on the over leaf of he annex-A, over the signature of the complainant, Runa Sarkar, one endorsement “Please renew for six months” which does not bear any date. Accordingly, we are unable to accept this endorsement as the direction/instruction of the complainant towards the o.p. no.1. The complainant is a consumer of o.p. no.1 and she reposed her full confidence on o.p. no.1 and definitely o.p. no.1 was required to be more careful to deal with this sort of transactions. Moreover, we have perused annex-E, wherefrom it appears that the complainant was given assurance that her complaint lodged on 6.2.07 was being looked into in consultation with their zonal office, but no fruitful result came out. Even o.p. no.1 as well as o.p. nos.2 and3 never bothered to reply the legal notice sent by the complainant on 25.6.08. So, it reasonably appears to us that the o.p. SBI was very much careless towards providing service to the complainant who is a consumer of o.p. no.1. No w/v was filed by the o.p. controverting the allegation made by the complainant in her complaint petition wherefrom it appears that they have nothing to say in respect of the allegations made by the complainant. Accordingly, we find the o.ps. to be deficient in service and the case succeeds on merit.

          That the o.p. no.1 is directed to issue fresh copy of STDR in original against the account no.0129200918101 in the name of the complainant Runa Sarkar giving effect from 25.7.06 to 25.7.10 according to their clause considering the rate of interest prevailing on 25.7.06 within forty five days from the date of communication of this order. The complainant do get an award of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only as litigation cost. The o.p. no.1 is directed to comply with the order in toto within forty five days from the date of communication of this order, in default, it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

          Supply certified copy+ of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.