Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/45/2015

Chandrik Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager (State Bank Of India) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R.L. Sharam

21 Jun 2022

ORDER

The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has opened a saving bank account vide saving Bank Account No. 65 with the O.P since 1989 credit  balance (deposit) savings of the Complainant was Rs. 41,623/-in his savings bank passbook.

2        The Complainant fell ill for a considerable period and had been to his native place Bihar for treatment and after recover from illness the Complainant came to Sambalpur and shifted to Malibari, Badabazar, Khetrajpur, Sambalpur. Thereafter the Complainant had been to the Bank Authority and enquired about the Bank Account, but the Bank staffs did not Co-Operated with the Complainant. On dated 20.11.2014 the Complainant had been to the Bank for deposit some amount in the said Bank Account, he knew by the Branch Manager that the said Account has been closed due to non operation of the account, so the said account is not showing in the Computer of the Bank.

3.In the month of December, 2014 the Complainant appraised his through written  complaint and on dated 19.05.2015 the Complainant sent written complaint by registered post with A.D, but the bank authority did not respond on the matter and did not give any reply to the  letter .As per the complaint petition non-allowing the Complainant to operate the account, ,not allowing the Complainant to withdraw the money and not giving proper reply to the complain letter is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the part of the O.P.

4.       The Version of the O.P is that the case is not a maintainable on the facts and document as available in the record. The case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The Complainant is not residing at the address given in the complaint petition and residing outside the jurisdiction of this Forum. The averments made in para-1of the complaint petition disclosed that bank maintained several type of account like Saving, Fixed deposits and current deposits etc. Hence the Complaint is very well Conversant with the banking procedure and knows every attribute & power of bank.

5.       The account number and year related to Manual Era. That to protect the interest and security of the deposits bank has shifted to Bank Master platform with a new account number and subsequently to C.B.S(Computerized Banking System) Platform with another New account number for both operative and in-operative saving Bank account. The Complainant account if any was not carried to Bank Master in the year 2003 as reflected in Annexure-A, wherein, after saving bank Account Number-53 of Gulsan Kumar Ajmani next account No. 79 belongs to Ram Sunder Tiwari. The Accounts No 54 to 78  was not migrated to Bank Master, which include Account No. 65. It reflects that Complainants Account has been Closed in manual platform itself. And finally in the year 2005 all banking transaction was shifted to C.B.S. And in Bank Master as well as in CBS system the account numbers are 11 numerical numbers.

6.       The Complainant is suffering from illness for considerable period and has shifted to his native place Bihar for treatments. This admitted facts supports O.P that in the year 2003 when all accounts are shifted to Bank Master, saving bank Account No 65 of Sri Chandrika Prasad was closed. As per the version of O.P, Bank official again and again supplied information to the Complainant about his account which was closed prior to Bank Master and also given reply to his letter.

7.       As per the O.P version when the Bank migrated to Bank Master and CBS all the account number are 11(eleven) digit numerical and any person who supplied a two digit Account Number, the bank staff bearing human and reasonable & logical person returned his some deposit and repeatedly inform his that his account has been closed before bank migrated to bank master wherein the account numbers are of 11 digits. In the month of November to register letter dated 19.05.2015, Bank official repeatedly inform the Complainant that his account has been closed since manual era and his Account No.65 has not been migrated to bank master. The bank has not with held any saving money of Complainant; the Complainant has not initiated his long absence from Sambalpur and account has not been closed for non-operation. The old records were destroyed as per retention period of record as per banking guideline. As the Complainant is well conversant with banking procedure, he can very well at Bihar apply to any Branch of the O.P for transfer of his Account to his nearest branch of State Bank of India. As the Complainant very well know that if at all he has saving bank account bearing No. 65, that was closed as such he has during his long absence from Sambalpur has not applied for transfer of account. The State Bank of India does its monetary transaction through a completely transparent manner and it has no hidden cost and charges. And the Bank thrives through public deposits and has to look after the safety of those public deposits. AS there was no saving bank account of complainant and no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P and that there is no arbitrariness, unfair trade practice and deficiency in banking service by bank as alleged by the Complainant. As bank has employed the eleven digit account in the year 2003, the limitation period for filing of case would be around 2006. Hence as per the version of O.P the complaint has been filed latter then two year, the case is barred by period of limitation.

Issues:-

1. Whether the Complainant is the consumer of the O.P at the time of filing of the case?
2. Is the case barred by period of limitation?
3. Is any deficiency or negligence in the part of Complainant or O.P?
4. Is the O.P liable for giving any compensation to the Complainant?

Issues No.1

          Whether the Complainant is the Consumer of the O.P at the time of filing of the case?

          The Complainant was a consumer of the O.P, since the year 1989 through the bank has allotted account number vide saving bank Account No. 65. Due to the negligence of the Complainant himself, the account was closed. As there was no saving bank account of Complainant, the Complainant is not the consumer of the O.P at the time of filing of the case.

Issues No.2

          Is the case barred by period of limitation?

          The bank has employed the eleven digit account in the year 2003; the limitation period for filing of case would be around 2006. The case has been filed much later than two years due to negligence of the Complainant himself, so the case is barred by period of limitation.

Issues No.3

          Is any deficiency or negligence in the part of Complainant or O.P?

          The Complainant should have intimate his change address or he can apply for transfer of his account to has nearest branch where he resided and due to his own negligence the account was closed. Hence there is negligence in the part of Complainant. Where the O.P had tried to intimated the Complainant and send a register letter on dated 19.5.2014, there is no deficiency in the part of O.P.

 Issues No.4

          Is the O.P liable for giving any compensation to the Complainant?

          There is no deficiency or negligence in the part of O.P, where as the Complainant himself is negligent. Hence the O.P is not liable for compensate any to the Complainant.

O R D E R

          The Complaint petition is dismissed on contest. No Cost.

          Order Pronounced in open Court on this 21^st  day of June-2022.

          Supply free copies to the parties.