Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mokhopadhyay, President.
Some financial dispute between the Complainant and the Branch Manager is the bone of contention for adjudication of this case. The Complainant Jarina Bibi described the facts of the case in a nutshell that as per instruction of the OP Branch Manager SBI Dinhata Branch, the Complainant Jarina Bibi opened S/B Account in the SBI Customer Service Point under the OP bank being Account No.35620635299 wherein she made different diposits and also withdrawal money from time to time as per Annexure-A. On 08.06.17 the Complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with the Customer Service Point on the basis of which the authorised person of OP issued pay-in-slip with seal and signature to the Complainant. Annexure-B is the money receipt. Subsequently when the Complainant went to withdraw the said money, then the authorised person of the OP stated that there was no money in the account of the Complainant. The Complainant accordingly met with the OP immediately and after updating the pass book she found that the said sum of Rs.10,000/- was not deposited in her account. The Complainant therefore informed the matter to the OP who assured the Complainant to settle the dispute within a short time. But the Complainant could not recover the amount. Thereafter the Customer Service Point under the OP was closed down in that area and the said authorised person of the OP namely Manowar Haque became absconder in the area. On 18.10.18 the Complainant filed written complaint against the OP to the Consumer affairs Department Cooch Behar and the OP after being appeared therein denied the claim of the Complainant. This is reflected in Annexure-C. On 07.01.19 the Complainant filed a written complaint to the OP but the OP did not receive it. Thereafter the said complaint was sent by registered post to the OP which he received but did not reply. The aforesaid activities of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service and it is arbitrary. The cause of action in the present case arose on 08.06.17, 16.11.18 and 07.01.19 and is still continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for an order against the OP for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with up to date interest and further order of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony as well as deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein they denied each and every allegation and averment. The positive defence case in few words is that for the purpose of opening savings account only the KYC document of the customers are obtained and recorded in the CSP’s through SBI’s unique Kiosk Banking Biometric System installed in the CSP and then the documents of the respective customers are sent to the SBI link Branch. Thereafter in due process the account of the customers are opened by the Central Computer Server System of SBI. All the deposit and withdrawal transactions are conducted online and on a real time basis in the CSP and the customers are provided with only system generated computerised receipt against each and every transaction. No hand written receipt is permitted as per the existing rules of the bank. For the purpose of awareness it’s guideline in the form of “Do-Don’ts” in vernacular language was displayed within the premises of the CSP outlet. The maximum limit of Rs.20,000/- can be deposited at one time in the account of the customer in CSP. So the question of deposit of Rs.40,000/- by the Complainant on 14.09.17 are baseless. The SBI Kiosk banking software installed in the CSP’s computer machine for operational purpose has been designed to allow deposit within a limit of Rs.20,000/- only and not a single rupees in excess of this amount. In consequence of deposit a pay-in-slip is issued against the deposit made by the customers of CSP. It is previously mentioned that all money receipts issued are system generated computerised receipts and hand written slips are not allowed. CSP are exclusively managed and maintained by the outsourcing agencies of SBI. So the present CSP is managed by MB unit of social equality private limited, Ranaghat, Nadia, W.B. through their authorised representative Alima Khatun, CSP code No. 32261873 of Nayarhat Bazar. Due to absence of authorised representative for some unknown reason all the accounts of the said CSP were transferred to nearby Gobrachara CSP by general announcement to the locality through microphone. All other customers are now availing facility of kiosk banking from the new place of business. So the question of deficiencies in service does not arise the OP claimed that the case is liable to be rejected with cost.
The specific claim of the Complainant against the OP which the latter denied and disputed led this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The Complainant claimed himself as a customer under the OP SBI Dinhata Branch which the OP did not deny. The Complainant in order to prove her status filed and proved the pass book of OP SBI bank in the name of Jarina Bibi having account No. 35620635299. The Complainant also proved document like pay-in-slip for transaction with the OP bank. Thus after perusing the documents going through evidence on affidavit it is crystal clear that the Complainant Jarina Bibi is a customer and as such a consumer under the OP bank Dinhata Branch under whom the BCSP was working.
Accordingly point No. 1 is decided and answered in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos.2 & 3.
Both the points are very closely interlinked with each other and as such taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is the specific case of the Complainant Jarina Bibi that she deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the OP bank through customer service point. Subsequently when she went to withdraw the amount, she found to her utter surprise that the said money of Rs.10,000/- was not deposited in her account.
The OP denied and disputed the fact. Previously we have found that the Complainant is a customer under the OP bank having account No. 35620635299. The Complainant in order to substantiate her specific plea proved Annexure-B being the pay-in-slip wherefrom it is found that the Complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 08.06.17 in her account No. 35620635299. The said Annexure-B further discloses that the pay-in-slip dated 08.06.17 of SBI Dinhata bears the original seal of the OP bank CSP.
Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that the bank usually does not allow any hand written pay-in-slip and as such the claim of the Complainant is genuine.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant vehemently raised objection to that point on the ground the OP admitted that CSP was working under them. So they cannot escape their liability.
After perusing the defence pleadings it transpires that the OP took the plea that the CSP was opened for collecting KYC documents of the customers which was recorded in SBI’s Unique Kiosk Banking Biometric System which were subsequently sent to the SBI link Branch. Subsequently the account of the customers are opened by the central computer server system. All the disputes and withdrawal transaction are conducted online and on a real time basis in the CSP and the customers are provided with only system generated computerised receipt.
Thus the pleadings of the OP clearly indicates that CSP used to be run under the direction and supervision of the OP bank.
It is further important to consider that at the relevant time the CSP used to be run within the bank premises and not in any outside place over which the bank does not have any control and supervision. However the defence plea taken by the OP could not be duly established by valid and cogent document as to how the OP bank could escape their liability of disputed money of a customer through CSP. It is not the case of the OP that the said money receipt is forged or genuine. When the deposited pay-in-slip bears the seal of the bank with signature, then the Complainant cannot be set to have forced to pay-in-slip.
That apart it is also the defence case that the OP bank allowed MB unit of social equality private limited, Ranaghat, Nadia, WB to run the CSP through their authorised representative Alima Khatun, CSP code No. 32261873 of Nayarhat Bazar. Therefore the said CSP was duly authorised by the OP bank. It is also the defence case that due to absence of authorised representative for some unknown reason all the accounts of the CSP were transferred to nearby Gobrachara CSP. It clearly establishes that there were some lapse on the part of the CSP for which it was transferred to another CSP.
Thus the circumstantial evidence also establishes the case of the Complainant in addition to the direct evidence led by the Complainant through her evidence in affidavit as well as documentary evidence.
It is also further important to consider that the OP bank put some question to the Complainant by the interrogatory. The gist of the said question and answer goes to prove that the Complainant duly proved the computerised pass book and the money receipt cum pay-in-slip.
Although the OP bank took the plea about “do and do not” guideline of the OP bank in vernacular language was displayed within the premises of CSP, the Complainant answered specifically that it is matter of record. So the onus shifted upon the OP bank to prove the said guidelines in black and white before the Commission but the OP bank could not prove the same before this Commission. Despite raising question as to the computerised pay-in-slip, non production of rules and guidelines of OP bank could not disprove the pay-in-slip proved by the Complainant as Annexure-B.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also argued that the pass book of the Complainant discloses that the Op bank had Branch link at Dinhata No.0209 and CSP No.0525 as per Annexure-A. So the OP bank cannot deny its liability.
Last but not the least point argued by the Ld. Defence counsel is that the OP bank has no liability as CSP is controlled by different servicing agencies.
The argument has no leg to stand in as much as the OP bank could not prove any document to establish that the said CSP had any independent power regarding decision making or functioning independently without the direction of the OP bank. The pay-in-slip bears a slip in which the name of SBI CSP is given. CSP itself is not a banking company. Public also has no trust over the said CSP until and unless it is authorised by SBI.
In the back drop of the discussion made herein above as well as the observation made therein, reasonable inference is drawn that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the OP bank CSP which was not credited to her account and as such the activities of the OP bank tantamounts to deficiency in service. Consequently the agony and harassment faced by the Complainant should be compensated by money.
Point Nos. 2 & 3 are accordingly answered in favour of the Complainant. In the result the complaint case succeeds on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/14/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant Jarina Bibi do get an award of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit of the said money till the date of realization thereof and Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony as well as deficiency in service from the OP bank.
The OP bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to get interest on the total award money from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of its realization.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Note in the Trial Register.
Dictated and corrected by me.
