Ld. Advocate(s)

                                    For Complainant: Prodip Banerjee

                                    For OP/OPs : Amarendra Nath Biswas

            Date of filing of the case                      :28.01.2019

            Date of Disposal  of the case              :25.06.2024

Final Order / Judgment dtd.25.06.2024

The basic fact as stated in the complaint in a nutshell is that the son of the complainant Smt. Anjali Das died on 05.02.2013 in a road accident. Over that incident MAC case was filed in which a sum of Rs.369500/- was awarded as compensation with interest. The complainant deposited the said money with the OP bank in fixed deposit scheme.  By   the   said    amount   allotted   in favour of the  complainant she used  to purchase  medicine  for her illness. Due to not getting monthly interest  of the deposited  money she could not purchase  the medicine . The complainant  informed it  to the Branch Manager  SBI Bethuadahari  Branch  with a prayer  to pay the dues. The complainant opened  one LIC policy Jeevan Akshoy-IV scheme  (MIS) wherefrom  she has been getting Rs.572/- from OP No.2  Dipankar Biswas Customer Service Point (CSP) Judpur , Nakashipara, Nadia through  her account No.34963727007 of CSP, SBI in every month. The complainant used to withdraw money putting LTI. Despite submission of letter the OP bank did not take any step in payment of the money. The complainant became paralysed and was hospitalised since 13.12.2018. Despite demand of money from the OP No.1 Bank they did not pay any money. Due to gross negligence of OP the condition of the complainant has been deteriorated. In course of trial the complainant died and her legal heirs were substituted as per the cause title vide order no. 7 dated 26.09.2019. The complainant , therefore,  prayed for an award  of  the said deposited  money together  with interest  @8% , Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation  and Rs.20,000/- towards  litigation cost  plus Rs.572/- per month.

          The OP contested the case by filing W/V wherein they denied each and every allegation of the complainant.  The OPs challenged the case as not maintainable on the ground that it is barred by limitation and bad for defect of parties since CSP Bethuadahari is not a party   to this case. The complainant is not a consumer. The positive defence case of the OPs in brief is that the complainant opened an account in the CSP Bethuadahari. The account is operated by biometric process. Without going to the bank or CSP or without the LTI of the customer the account cannot be operated.  The complainant did not go to the CSP for a long period. For the non-matching  of ultimate  impression  CSP in charge could not generate the said  account of the  complainant  and the machine did not permit her  to withdraw  money  for bank security  purpose.  The said customer did not go to the bank personally or to the CSP Bethuadahari for a long period of more than one year. It is not the duty of the bank to make payment of any amount to any customer in his home.  After proper verification bank can allow for withdrawal if the customer comes to the bank. The complainant never came to the bank or to the CSP Behtuadahari. A sum of Rs.572/- per month is being credited and the current balance  as on 01.03.2019 is 14924/-, so  the bank authority  has no fault . The OP claimed that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties  the Commission considers it necessary  to ascertain  the following points for proper adjudication of the case. 

Points for Determination

Point No.1.

Whether the  case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.

Point No.2.

Whether the complainant  is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Point No.3.

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1.

The OP challenged the case as not maintainable on the ground that the it is barred by limitation and bad for defect of parties .

The complainant  seems to have disclosed  the date of arising of cause of action which is on and from on 16.03.2018. The present case is filed on 28.01.2019 which is well within  the limitation period as per the C.P. Act.

The complainant  has also made the said Dipankar Biswas  of CSP Jugpur, Nakashipara , Nadia as party to the case.

The attention of the court is drawn by the Ld. Defence Counsel  in course of argument  that as per para-10 of the W/V the CSP Bethuadahari  has not been made party  to this case. If we consider  the letter of the complainant  dated 16.03.2018 it would be  found the  complainant lodged the complaint  stating inter-alia  that due to  non-matching  of LTI impression  the CSP, Jugpur Branch , Nakashipara , Nadia  was not giving  money since last one year.  So, the cause of action arose for non-payment money by the CSP and the OP bank. The said CSP  Jugpur Branch is a party to this case. That apart the main branch SBI Bethuadahari  is a party  to this case and as such not making CSP of Bethuadahari party does not affect  the case of the complainant  and as such it is not  bad for defect of parties. Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the materials available in the case record the Commission is of the view that the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.

Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in affirmative in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2&3.

Both the points are closely inter linked with each other and as such these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.

It is the admitted fact that the complainant opened an account in the CSP Bethuadahari  which is another CSP.

The complainant in order to substantiate the case proved the following documents:-

No.1 Original LIC Policy.

No.2 Discharge certificate of the original complainant dated 13.12.2018 in the name of Anjali Das,.

No.3 Letter by the complainant to Branch Manager SBI Bethuadahari Branch.

No.4 Letter by the complainant  to the SBI Bethuadahari Branch  dated 17.12.2018 with a copy to OP NO.2 CSP Jugpur, Nadia.

No.5 Death Certificate  of a decease Anjali Das dated 11.02.2019.

No.6 SBI Kiosk  Banking  Identity Card of the complainant Anjali Das having account no.34963727007.

No.7 Medicine Slip of Guin Pharmacy.

No.8 copy of award of MAC case no.246/2013.

NO.9 RBI door step  banking  circular dated 09.11.2017.

There is no denial to the fact that the complainant opened an account with the OP bank at CSP Bethuadahari  Branch. There is no denial  that the complainant  used to  withdraw money  after depositing  the amount  received  in the award passed in MAC case for the death  of her son in a road  accident. After perusing the document letter dated 16.03.2018 it transpires that the complainant lodged a complaint stating inter-alia  that she got  lump sum amount  from insurance company towards compensation  and kept it with LIC in MIS policy  and the interest  of that MIS was being credited in the  SB account  of the OP bank. She used  that money for purchasing  medicine  due to old age  decease. Due to non-matching  her LTI or finger print  the CSP  Jugpur branch  did not give  money since  last one year . The said letter  was sent by  registered post  along with  copy to SBI CEO, Kolkata  and SBI Mumbai  with a further copy to  RBI along with enclosure of medical certificate and SBI Identity card.

There is no denial that the  said letter was not sent.

By following  provisions of section 114 of the Evidence Act if  the registered  letter sent to the addressee, it   shall be deemed  to have been served  upon the  addressee.

But the  OP could not  prove any document  to establish  that any action was taken  for redressal  of the grievance  of the complainant  or any step taken against the said letter.

The complainant  also proved  another letter dated 17.12.2018  to the Branch Manager  SBI Bethuadahari  referring  the previously  letter with a request  to take a necessary steps.

A copy of the said letter  was also given  to OP NO.2 but no step was  taken  by either of the OPs.

The complainant also  proved  medical documents  to show that she was  an aged ailing  lady who was consuming  medicines  but the OP neglected to her application without  redressing  her grievance.

Ld. Defence Counsel  argued that the bank pass book is not proved  but there is no denial or anything in the case record that the complainant  had no account with the OP  bank through the OP No.2.

Ld. Defence Counsel further argued  that the complainant  admitted  that her signature  did not match , so how  the bank  could pay the money.

Ld. Advocate for the complainant rightly argued  that the bank did not reply to the letter or asked  the complainant to give fresh signature.

The argument  has reasonable force . The OP bank could have  demanded  for further KYC or obtained  her signature  for matching with signature  but the OP remained  silent  and ignored  the sufferings of the complainant .

Ld. Advocate for the complainant further argued that the RBI has passed a circular whereby as per clause (g) door step banking was directed to be provided to the Senior Citizen of more than 70 years. As per identity card of the complainant proved in the case record,  she was the customer having account with the OP bank and her age as per document no.3 dated 16.03.2018 is 75 years. So, she was entitled to get the benefit of Door Step Banking as per the said circular.

Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the RBI circular is advisory and not directory.

The argument  is not acceptable  in as much as  sometimes  advisory should be  considered  as directory since there is nothing  in the said circular  that the bank  has any discretion  to implement the said advisory  as per their own  discretion. When an aged ailing   lady of 75 years was unable  to attend the   bank  it was the duty  of the OP bank to extend  the services  in compliance  with the circular  of the RBI under the Doors  Step Banking  policy. Thus the OP appears to have acted in a manner which has caused deficiency in service to the complainant.

It is important to consider that Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant died in course the trial of the case and as such could not enjoy the result of the case.

She died due to not getting  money  and as such  the OP should be directed  to pay heavy amount compensation  for harassment  and mental pain and agony.

Ld. Defence Counsel  raised  objection  on the ground  that the son of the  complainant  has already died , so who will get  the money  because  account is not heritable.

The argument is not acceptable because so long as the complainant was alive the substituted complainant used to look after her  in absence  of her decease son who also spent  money  for the complainant who is the consumer  of this case. There is no legal bar to give the money to the present complainant after obtaining succession certificate or indemnity bond as per the provision of law.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and having assessed the entire evidence in the case record vis-a-vis the observation made hereinabove the Commission considers that the complainant successfully proved the case against the OP.

The OP acted  in a manner  which tantamounts  to deficiency in service.

Accordingly, point no.2&3 are answered in affirmative in favour of the complainant.

In the result  the complaint case succeeds  on contest with cost against the OPs.

Hence,

                              It is

Ordered

that the complaint case no.CC/18/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) in favour of the complainants. The complainants do get an award for a sum of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees   fifty thousand ) towards  deficiency in service  and mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)towards litigation cost. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand)  to the present complainants  after substitution within 30 days from the date of passing the final order failing which  the entire award money shall carry an interest @8 % p.a from the date of passing the final award till the date of its realisation.

All Interim Applications  (I.A) stand disposed of  accordingly.

D.A to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.               

Dictated & corrected by me

 ....................................................

                MEMBER     

(SHRI NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)                         

                                                                                                                       MEMBER

                                                                          (SHRI NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)                         

I  concur,

                                                                          …………………………………………………..                       

………….......................................................                                                      

                         PRESIDENT                                                                            

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)