Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
Some financial dispute between the Complainant and the Branch Manager is the bone of contention for adjudication of this case. The Complainant Khachiran Bibi described the facts of the case in a nutshell that as per instruction of the OP Branch Manager SBI Dinhata Branch, the Complainant Khachiran Bibi opened S/B Account in the SBI Customer Service Point under the OP bank being Account No.35965325116 wherein she made different deposits and also withdrawal money from time to time as per Annexure-A. On 18.10.16 the Complainant deposited Rs.13,000/- 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.13,000/- 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 10.10.18 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 18.10.16, 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.13,000/- with up to date interest and further order of Rs.5,000/- 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 Khachiran Bibi having account No. 35965325116. The Complainant also proved document like pay-in-slip for transaction with the OP bank. Thus after perusing the documents and going through evidence on affidavit it is crystal clear that the Complainant Khachiran 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 Khachiran Bibi that she deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- 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.13,000/- 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. 89169676826. The Complainant in order to substantiate her specific plea proved Annexure being the pay-in-slip wherefrom it is found that the Complainant deposited Rs.13,000/- on 18.10.16 in her account No. 89169676826. The said Annexure-B further discloses that the pay-in-slip dated 18.10.16 of SBI Dinhata actually was deposited in the CIF number of the Complainant.
Thus although the Complainant established that he deposited Rs. 13,000/- in her account but actually the said amount was deposited in her CIF number and not in her account number. Therefore the Complainant cannot be said to have proved that his money was deposited in her bank account.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the said mistake was done by the Agent of the bank who was conducting the Customer Service Centre. So it is a lapse on the part of the bank for which Complainant has nothing to do.
The said argument is not acceptable in as much as while giving relief to the Complainant the main point to be consider by this Commission is whether the money was actually deposited in the account of the Complainant or not. In the instant case the Pass Book of the Complainant clearly shows that the account number of the Complainant is 35965325116 and CIF No. is 89169676826. The Pay-in-slip clearly discloses that the cash was deposited in the CIF number of the Complainant which has been mistakenly written as the account number. Therefore this Commission comes to the conclusion that the account was actually not deposited in the account number of the Complainant but it was deposited in her CIF number.
After assessing the evidence on record and the document like the Pass Book and the Pay-in-slip the Commission comes to the finding that the money of Rs.13,000/- was not deposited to the actual account of the Complainant. Therefore the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Accordingly issue Nos. 2 & 3 are answered in negative and decided against the Complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/15/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
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.
