DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 123 of   2017 

 

Sri Swapan Sarkar,

S/O- Lt. Ramani Sarkar,

Belabar North, Near Belabar School,

Charipara, P.S. A.D. Nagar,

West Tripura- 799003. ..…..…......Complainant.

 

 

         -VERSUS-

 

 

The State Bank of India,

R.M.S. Chowmihani Branch,

Represented by-

The Branch Manager,

R.M.S. Chowmuhani Branch,

Ramnagar Road No. 2, Ramnagar,

Agartala, West Tripura- 799002. ..............Opposite Party.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C o u n s e l

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sovan Mahajan,

  Smt. Bubli Sur,

  Advocates.

      

For the Opposite Party : Sri Amritlal Saha,

  Sri Joydeep Paul,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Advocates.

 

  

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  14.09.2018.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Swapan Sarkar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he opened a Savings Account with the State Bank of India, R.M.S. Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala. He deposited Rs.500/- on 07.07.17 and his balance was then Rs.17,291/-. On 10.07.17 he presented one cheque but the bank authority refused to encash the  cheque without any reason. He could not withdraw any amount. On 12.09.17 he again presented one cheque. But the bank authority refused to encash. He is a physically handicapped person. He was in need of money for treatment of his wife. He requested bank authority to regularize but the bank authority again and again refused. He prayed for compensation Rs.50,000 and also Rs.30,000/- for mental agony, litigation cost in total he claimed Rs.1 Lac. 

 

2. O.P. Manager, State Bank of India filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that they received one request letter from Deodar Police Station in connection with the FIR No. 159/12 IPC. There was complaint U/S 420, 406 IPC. It was detected that some amount entered into the petitioner from others. Unless it was rectified further withdrawal was stopped by the bank rightly. Petitioner could not clarified and there is no deficiency of service by the bank. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the petitioner and O.P. following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the refusal for withdrawing of the money by bank was justified?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed?

 

4. Petitioner side produced the Pass Book, 2 cheques, representation to the Bank, Disablement Certificate, Agency issuing letter. Petitioner also produced statement on affidavit of one witness.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the copy of bank statement, F.I.R. as sent from the Deodar Police Station, communication by E-mail, letters and transaction enquiry, statement of account of Swapan Sarkar.

    On the basis of evidence we shall now determine the points.

 

  Findings and decision:

6. We have gone through the Pass Book of Swapan Sarkar and found that in the Pass Book total balance was Rs.17,251/- as on 07.07.2017. In the cross examination Swapan Sarkar stated that he never deposited an amount of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.17,000/- Rs.10,000/- and again Rs.10,000/-.  We have gone through the statement of account of Swapan Sarkar and found that his total balance was Rs.1,11,000/- as on 08.05.2012. 

 

7. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, R.M.S. Chowmuhani Branch in his statement on affidavit stated that the account was hold by Deodar Branch, SBI. They made communication with the Branch Manager of SBI. From that letter it was found that Rs.42,000/- was held by the Deodar Branch and for that petitioner could not withdraw the money. 2 letters in Gujrati language is produced by the SBI authority. From that letter it is found that Rs.42,000/- was held by the Deodar Branch due  to Account complaint.

 

8. Petitioner in his evidence clearly stated that balance in his account was Rs.17,291/- on 07.07.17. He submitted the cheque for withdrawal of Rs.500/- only. On 10.07.17 and 12.09.17 but those Rs.500/- was not allowed to be encashed.  It is not that this Rs.500/- was held by the Deodar Branch of SBI. The State Bank of India, RMS Chowmuhani Branch failed to justify the refusal of Rs.500/- only as Rs.42,000/- held by the Deodar Branch from the account of petitioner. In this electronic age the Bank could easily find out or detect the amount actually deposited by the petitioner and not deposited by the petitioner but comes from other accounts. After checking the same petitioner could allow the withdrawal of Rs.500/- only. But the Bank authority failed to do so on 2 dates and it was not justified at all.

 

9. Petitioner clearly stated that he tried to withdraw Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- total Rs.1000/- which was denied. The amount was required for the treatment of his wife. He did not say how for failure to withdraw the amount he suffered. It is only stated that he suffered loss of Rs.70,000/- for not withdrawing Rs.1000/- in 2 attempts on 2 dates. 

 

10. Swapan Sarkar in his statement on affidavit stated that he is 60% disabled person. He made written representation to the O.P. Bank. Requested to regularize the account. But the O.P. did not give any reply. As hard earn money was lying his bank account he could not utilize the money for urgent need. Due to the silent attitude petitioner suffered.

 

11. O.P. Bank Manager in his statement on affidavit stated that Deodar Branch created the hold pursuant to the request from Deodar Police Station. He wrote letter to the Deodar Branch but it was not cleared.  The SBI authority did not take up the matter with the higher authority. Both the Branches are under control of the higher authority of SBI Bank. But without consultation with the higher authority transaction was stopped on receipt of a complaint by police. This is improper. On receipt of the complaint only transaction can not be stopped without courts order. If some amount comes to the account of the petitioner from unknown  source transaction in respect of those amount should have been stopped. But the amount which was deposited by the petitioner from his earning or from any other valid source should not be stopped. It is found that petitioner had above Rs.17,000/- balance in his account. But he was not allowed to withdraw Rs.500/-. This is deficiency of service by the Bank. Due to deficiency of service petitioner suffered. But the claim of the petitioner that he suffered loss of Rs.70,000/- for failure to withdraw Rs.1,000/- is not believable. Therefore, he is entitled to to get Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service by the Bank. He is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost. Further we direct the Bank authority to regularize the Bank account of the petitioner and allow him to withdraw the amount that was deposited by the petitioner not come from outside. The Bank authority could easily do so by detection mechanically. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. In view of our above findings we direct the O.P. S.B.I. authority to pay petitioner Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost and also allow the petitioner to operate his bank account to the extent of the amount he had deposited with holding the amount comes from other account not deposited by him or not transferred to his account by any known person of the petitioner. Accordingly the case is dismissed.   

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA