Date of Filing: 01/09/2021
Date of Judgement : 25/11/2024
Sri Manish Deb, Hon’ble Member
That the aforesaid complainant No.1 is Soma Pratihar, deserted woman. she has a minor daughter namely Prathama Pratihar, complainant No.1 has to take care of her daughter’s educational expenditure, fooding clothing medical cost among others. But the financial condition of the complainant No.1 is not good and she had no personal income. So complainant No.1 has to depend on kind hearted people to bear the expenses of her daughter.
That a savings account bearing No.35556383592 was opened in State Bank of India Survey Park Branch, Santoshpur, Kolkata 700 075 on 06.02.2016 in the name of complainant No.2 Prathama Pratihar for the purpose of clearing the cheque of scholarships or cheques from any kind hearted people for educational purpose. As the complainant No.2 was minor, the name of the complainant No.1 Soma Pratihar was added to this account as second person to operate this account of Complainant No.2.
That the aforesaid complainants submit that the following cheques of scholar ship bearing No.583910 and 3204 along with education fees were cleared on 2002.2016, 28.10.2016 and 01.04.2017. The complainant No.1 was able to withdraw money on 04.04.2016 without any problem.
That in the month of February and March of 2018, the complainant No.2 Prathama Pratihar along with her maternal grandfather went to the Bank to withdraw the money for the purpose of purchasing the books of Class IX.
But the bank officer told them that they were not allowed to withdraw the money because the account was on hold and the bank officer misbehaved with them and harassed the father of the complainant No.1 Soma Pratihar when he asked the reason for on-holding the account.
That the said account was on-hold without informing the complainants or providing them any reasonable ground to keep the said account on hold. But the two distinct cheques bearing No.811180 and 418051 were cleared on 05.02.2018 and 21.03.2018 respectively in this account.
That the complainants state that many kind hearted persons wanted to help the Complainant No.2 financially for her educational purpose through cheques. But as they came to know from the OP No.1 that the account was on hold and unable to withdraw the money, they did not agree to provide any cash amount instead of cheques.
That the complainants state that the complainant No.2 Prathama Pratihar studied at Apeejay School, Park Street and was a topper in her class. Besides she learnt dancing singing karate drawing and reciting. She was awarded the national championship 6 times in ABACUS and 2 times state level championship. She got 1st rank in All India Mathematics Talent Search Examination from where she got scholar ship cheques. She also got girl child scholarship from the Science Olympiad Foundation. Besides she participated in different types of extracurricular activities and won many trophies and medals.
That the complainants state that complainant No.2 participated in TV programmes twice and the Complainant No.1 was associated with so many celebrities those who wanted to help her minor daughter (complainant No.2) knowing about her financial crisis. As the complainant No.2 had no bank account at that time, the aforesaid bank account was opened. But due to illegal and arbitrary act of the OPs, the well wishers of the complainant No.2 did not donate any amount through cheque in favour of complainant No.2.
That the complainants state that the complainant No. 1 faced a severe car accident on January 2018 for which she was bedridden for a year and knowing this incident, many kind hearted persons came to help her minor daughter. But when they came to know from the complainant No. 2 Prathama Pratihar, that the account was on-hold they could not help. At that time the complainant No.1 had no money to bear the tuition fees and other expenses for education of complainant No.2 Prathama Pratihar. The complainant No.2 could not study at home due to non availability of books. For want of money the complainant No.1 did not give the tuition fees and for that reason the complainant No.2 was suffering mentally and physically. And the complainant No.1 as a mother of complainant No.2 was also suffering mentally and physically for this situation. It was very pathetic that they could not withdraw their own money from their said own account.
That the complainants submit that the complainants could not able to withdraw any money which was sent in the said account. The educational career of one brilliant child was going to an end. The complainant No.2 could not buy any books and was not able to sit in any competitive examination due to the lack of money. Also the complainant No.1 could not get the required food at that time.
There was none to support her. The complainant No.1 went to the SBI Survey Park Bank Officer said that this was a computer generated account which is set Hold and that they would not say anything or give any reason. The complainant No.1 could not update the Passbook for a few months due to break down of the update machine. When the complainant No.1 updated the Pass Book, she saw the printed word “Set Hold” in the page of Passbook since 30.01.2018.
That the complainants submit that the complainant No. 2 was mentally depressed when she had given the Board Exam 2020. Then the complainant No.1 went to bank to withdraw the money for purchasing the books of Class XI of complainant No.2 and requested the Branch Manager to tell her the reason for on-holding the account but got no answer from the branch manager.
The complainant No.1 was instead harassed again and again and she could not purchase books for her daughter and could not provide a private tutor for her daughter and her study was hampered. Then lock down started due to Pandemic situation and so the complainant No.1 could not take any necessary step against the illegal and arbitrary act of the opposite party SBI Bank officers. It seemed that the bank officers were playing a game with a child’s life. This incident not only occurred for a day or a month but also continued for 3 years long.
That the complainants submit that the complainant No.1 came to know from her close friend that she should request the bank manager once moiré to remove the on-hold status from her minor daughter’s account and if he did not do so they raise a complaint to Consumer Forum.
Accordingly the complainant went to bank on 10.03.2021 & 11.03.2021 and met with bank manager Avi Mukherjee and requested him to remove the on-hold status from the said account. The bank manager told that he could not help her as her child has a loan and the account was on-hold by the loan department and that the complainant No.1 should talk with the loan department of said Bank. But he refused to show or provide any documents regarding the same loan. But then the bank manager threatened and harassed the complainant No.1 when she asked them minor child could take a loan and said that she had no educational loan. The incident was informed to the Survey Park Police station on 13.03.2021.
That the complainants submit that the complainant No.1 sent an e-mail to SBI Nodal Officer on 11.03.2021 requesting to provide reason for on-holding the account of a minor child and without getting any response, she again sent a reminder e-mail on 15.03.2021. But she did not get any reply from the Nodal Officer and so was compelled to file a complaint before the Consumer Grievance on 22.03.2021.
That the complainants state on 24.03.2021 the Assistt. General Manager Madhurima Jaiswal informed the consumer forum that the RACPC South Kolkata has removed the hold from the account. Then the complainants received a message in mobile that the hold for Rs.10,00,000/-has been removed from account No.xxxxx383592. After complaining this incident to the consumer grievance, the complainant No.1 was able to know that Respondent No.2 i.e. RACPC South Kolkata illegally and falsely had done this account of a minor child on hold for amount of Rs.10 lakhs through the Survey Park SBI Branch.
That the complainants state that the bank officers hampered the education of a minor child day after day for 3 years by keeping the A/c on-hold illegally and immorally. They also harassed and misbehaved with the complainants, as the Complainant No.2 could not withdraw the scholarship money or other helping money from her aforesaid own bank account, the complainants could not purchase the school books or other necessary articles to continue the education of complainant No.2 smoothly.
The complainant also stated that the bank officers have hampered the future of the complainant No.2. On coming to know that the said account was on-hold, many well wishers were not willing to provide any monetary help to the complainant No.2 through cash. Therefore the complainants had to undergo a lot of financial crisis.
Furthermore, the bank is a financial institution which mainly provides service to the public. The SBI bank of Survey Park Branch had failed to provide the basic service to the public or its own customers by illegally and arbitrarily holding of the account of a minor child for 3 long years.
Forthwith the bank is liable to compensate for their misdeed wrong doing negligence illegality immorality and irresponsibility as such the complainants were harassed not only financially but both mentally and physically as well.
That the complainants submit that the complainant No.1 sent a letter to the Branch Manager of Survey Park Branch SBI and to the Asstt. General Manager of RACPC, South Kolkata asking for compensation for harassing the complainants both financially and mentally continuously for has 3 years along with hampering the education of complainant No. 2 by illegally and immorally holding the account.
That it is humbly stated that the complainant is suffering immensely for the conduct of OP No. 2. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant due to their fault and latches.
That under the circumstances, petitioners have to come up before the Commission for necessary redressal of grievances against ops regarding unfair trade practice of the opposite parties with prayer for compensation to complainants due to monetary loss, mental agony and harassment.
That the complainants submitted that complainant’s prayer may be allowed otherwise complainant’s interest shall be seriously prejudiced which cannot be compensated by any means.
PRAYER of COMPLAINANT
The complainants prayed before this Commission to pass orders against the opposite parties to grant following relief(s):
- For compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- for harassing, mental agony, pain, arbitrary act of the opposite parties and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.
- Rs.50, 000/- for litigation cost.
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION
Whether complainant fall in the category of the “Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Whether the commission has the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint
Whether the opposite party in deficient in providing its services to the complainant.
Whether the case is maintainable or not
Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
OBSERVATION, DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The complainant falls in the category of the “Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act 2019.
It is filled within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
The commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint
The main question for consideration before us is whether the opposite parties are deficient by not providing service as Banker to the complainant.
And our view is the opposite parties are liable in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged.
Our view regarding entitlement of getting relief sought by the complainant is also affirmative.
The OPs deliberately withheld the relevant account of minor which is an act of negligence, the OPs have created a lot of inconvenience or harassment and mental injury to the complainants.
Whereas under the contractual obligation towards the OPs were supposed to do certain acts, provide service as norms of SBI towards the complainant within a certain guideline of RBI which they did not performed and provided as such the acts of the said OPs come under the ambit of deficiency of service.
That the complainants state that the Bank officers hampered the education of a minor child day after day for 3 years by keeping the account on-hold illegally and immorally. They also harassed and misbehaved with the complainants, as the Complainant No. 2 could not withdraw the scholarship money or other helping money from her aforesaid own bank account, the complainants could not purchase the school books or other necessary articles to continue the education of complainant No.2 smoothly.
Somehow Bank officials have hampered the future of complainant No.2. Even coming to know that the said account was on-hold, many well wishers were not willing to provide any monetary help through cash to the complainant No. 2. Therefore the complainants had to undergo a lot of financial crisis.
Furthermore, the Bank is a financial institution which mainly provides service to the public. The SBI bank of Survey Park Branch had failed to provide the basic service to the public or its own customers by illegally and arbitrarily holding the said account of a minor child for 3 three long years.
Forthwith the bank is liable to compensate for their misdeed, wrong doing negligence, illegality, immorality and irresponsibility as such the complainants were harassed the complainants not only financially but both mentally and physically also.
That all these action and/or on the part of the opposite parties, as stated herein above, shows lack of transparency, highhandedness and of causing mental torture and pecuniary loss to the complainants, for no fault on the part of the complainant and which has been continuing day after day.
That the opposite parties adopted unfair means to deprived of service of their customers/consumers as a whole and due to the illegal acts committed by the opposite parties, The complainant suffered huge monetary loss which the opposite parties are liable to pay by way of compensation to petitioner.
That the complainants are a consumers under the act and have right to seek redress of his grievances before the Hon’ble Commission.
That under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainants are further entitled to get legal expenses pleaded in this petition, as the opposite parties have invited the said litigations.
In our view deficiency in service on the part of opposite Parties is established.
Whereas the opposite Parties have contest the case by filing written version, filed the questionnaires and written arguments.
Whereas the complaint filed by the complainants are almost remains unchallenged, the opposite parties have contended that the allegation are partly matter of record but they did not produced any supportive documents in respect of their contention . It is evident from the Clause Number “X” of the written version opposite parties did not clearly denied the contents of the para 13 & 14 of the complaint petition.
Whereas after meeting with Bank Manager Mr. Avi Mukherjee complainant requested him to remove the on-hold status from the said account. The bank Manager, Mr. Avi Mukherjee told to the complainant that he could not help her as her child has a loan and the account was on-hold declared by the loan department and that the complainant No.1 should talk with the loan department of said Bank.
But the loan department has refused to show or provide any documents regarding the same loan, Bank manager threatened and harassed the complainant No.1 when she asked them how a minor child could take an educational loan from the Bank.
The opposite parties was very much reluctant to produced any documents to established the educational loan availed by the complainant No. 2 from the Bank
That the complainant No.1 sent an e-mail to State Bank of India Nodal Officer requesting to provide reason for on-holding the account of a minor child and she got no response and without getting any response, complainant No.1 further sent a reminder e-mail. But complainant No.1 did not get any reply from the Nodal Officer and so she was compelled to file a complaint before the Consumer Grievance on 22.03.2021.
That the Assistt. General Manager thereafter informed the consumer Grievance forum that the RACPC South Kolkata of State Bank of India removed the hold from the account. Then the complainants received a message in mobile that the hold for Rs.10,00,000/-has been removed from account No.xxxxx383592. The OPs have illegally and falsely created also operated the said account in the name of a minor child and committed breach of trust, unfair trade practice by holding the account for amount of Rs.10 lakhs through the Survey Park SBI Branch even the opposite parties have not shown any urgency and necessity to produced any documentary proof or evidence in support of their defence.
Our view is that the Bank is liable for deficiency in service for in ordinate delay in providing Banking service, and the customer of the Bank is entitled to claim compensation for the loss and the injury suffered by the Customer and the Bank is also liable for deficiency of service in rendering service to the complainant by not allowing the complainant to operate and withdraw money from the account of the complainants even though the Balance standing in the account of the complainant was sufficient, above all where the correspondence and record showed that the Bank made mistake, and corrected the same after intervention of the another forum after lapse of considerable time, which effected the confidence of the customer /complainants.
In the Banking system and in our opinion, the complainant has successfully established their case thereby, making themselves eligible for the relief(s), sought for.
Hence it is
ORDERED
CC No. 393 of 2021 is allowed against all the opposite Parties
- The opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant for harassing, mental agony, pain , arbitrary act of the opposite parties and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of this order.
- The opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation within 60 days from the date of this order.
In case of failure, on the part of the opposite Parties to comply the above order, the complainant will be at liberty to file execution as per law.
Dictated and corrected by
Member
