Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The pecuniary financial crisis of the Complainant is the subject matter to raise his complaint before this Commission. The gist of the fact of the case is that the Complainant Sri Monoranjan Dutta is a customer of United Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch having S/B account No.0240011337238 which was transferred from Jalpaiguri Branch to Cooch Behar Branch of OP, United Bank of India, Sunity Road, Cooch Behar. The OP assured the Complainant to provide better facilities than other bank. On 10.06.16 the Complainant withdrawn Rs.1,03,000/- from the OP bank of United Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch at about 11.30 A.M. through cheque from the cash counter. After receiving the cash of Rs.1,03,000/- the Complainant kept the whole amount in his hand bag. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the another counter to update his pass book and at that moment somebody snatched the bag of the currency notes from the hands of the Complainant when he was inside the OP bank. The Complainant shouted immediately but the security of the OP bank did not come. The Complainant informed the Manager of the OP bank and requested him to call the security men and to close the door of the bank so that the culprit could be searched out. The Complainant also asked the Manager to see the CC TV footage and call the local police but the Manager did not take necessary steps. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a written complaint to the OP bank to compensate him but the bank did not respond. The Complainant also lodged a complaint to the IC, Kotwali P.S., Cooch Behar. Subsequently, the Complainant also lodged two complaints to the General Manager, United Bank of India, Kolkata and the Chief Grievance Officer, Kolkata on 01.11.16 and 21.11.16 respectively The said incident occurred inside the premises of the OP bank and as such there is deficiency in service. So, the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony and unnecessary harassment. The cause of action for the present case arose on 10.06.16 and on subsequent dates. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award of Rs.1,03,000/- alongwith interest against the Complainant, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony, Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP bank contested the case denying most of the allegations. The positive defence case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that the Complainant withdrawn his money from the cash withdrawal counter of the bank and after being satisfied with the payment by the bank cashier he took the withdrawal money in his custody and kept the money in his hand bag. Thereafter, the Complainant left the cash counter of the bank and he went to another place of the bank fixed for customer use and recess of customers. Thereafter, the incident occurred much after receipt of the money due to fault of the Complainant. The Complainant is wasting valuable time of the Commission. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The OP therefore claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The reciprocal case of the parties persuaded this Commission to ascertain the flowing points for just and effective adjudication of this case.
Points for Determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act?
- 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.
It is the admitted position that the Complainant Monoranjan Dutta is a customer of the OP bank, United Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch having S/B account No. 0240011337238. The OP categorically stated that the Complainant made transaction on the unfaithful day but denied to have any liability in respect of the said incident.
Whether the Complainant would get any relief or not that would be decided under the other two points No. 2 & 3. But having perused the pleadings of the parties and evidence on case record the Commission finds it reasonable and lawful to hold that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP bank.
Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in affirmative and decided in favour of the Complainant.
Points No. 2 & 3.
Both the points are closely interlinked with each other and accordingly these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.
The Complainant in order to substantiate the case proved some documents. Annexure-A is the copy of the pass book wherefrom it is revealed that the Complainant had S/B account with the United Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch, (OP bank). The said Annexure-A/1 also discloses that on the unfaithful day the Complainant withdrawn Rs.1,03,000/- from the OP bank.
There is no denial that the Complainant did not withdraw the said money on that day. Annexure-B further discloses that the Complainant submitted a written complaint to the OP bank disclosing that his money was robbed from inside the bank premises. The said application was received by the bank authority on 10.06.16. Annexure-C is the copy of the written complaint lodged to the IC, Kotwali P.S., Cooch Behar with a request to take necessary action.
Annexure-D is a written complaint dated 01.11.16 submitted by the Complainant Monoranjan Dutta to the General Manager, United Bank of India, Kolkata with a request to take proper steps so that he could recover his hard earned money.
Annexure-D/1 is an important document of written complaint filed by the Complainant on 21.11.16 to the Chief Grievance Redress Officer/ General Manager of United Bank of India, OP bank head Office, Kolkata.
Thus the Complainant proved all the documents necessary to establish the case.
Having perused the pleadings of the OP it transpires that the OP bank United Bank of India admitted the veracity of the incident. As per Para-16 of the written version of OP bank the Complainant withdrawn his money from the cash withdrawal counter of the bank and after being satisfied he took the withdrawal money in his custody and left the cash counter. Thereafter he went to another place of the bank fixed for customers use and recess of customers. Thereafter, the incident occurred much after the receipt of money due to the fault of the Complainant.
The said defence version clearly discloses that the Complainant withdrawn the money on the unfateful day and was within the bank premises which was fixed for customers use and recess of customers.
So, the said plea of the OP clearly reveals that the Complainant was staying at a place inside the bank premises which is meant for the customer of the bank and i.e. a place of recess for customers.
So in common parlance the bank premises is a place where the customers are supposed to have huge money with them. Some of them come with money for depositing into the bank and some of the customers stay there temporarily after withdrawing money. Therefore it is the duty and responsibility of the bank to arrange for sufficient security and protection of the customers. The said place is not an open place that a burglar or robber or a thief or a dacoit would roam over that place.
The OP never denied that there was no theft of the money from the customer as claimed by him. Instead the OP tried to fix up the responsibility exclusively opon the customer and accordingly stated that the incident occurred due to the fault of the Complainant. The said statement has two parts. First is that the incident occurred and second part is that due to the fault of the Complainant.
Our main concern is with the second part of the defence plea. There is nothing within the four corners of the case record that the Complainant after withdrawal of the money took any steps which led the thief or the miscreants to rob the money from the Complainant. It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant went to a place which is fixed for customers use and the recess of customers.
The case record shows that the Complainant Monoranjan Dutta is a senior citizen and also a pensioner. So there is nothing unlikely that a senior citizen after conducting a transaction of the bank might have inside to take rest or stay sometime inside the bank premises. If any incident of theft or robbery take place inside the bank premises, a customer cannot prevent it. Instead the bank had sufficient scope to deploy reasonable number of security personnel to check this kind of incident. This kind of miscreants usually watch the situation and atmosphere of the place and if they find any kind of loopholes in security measure, then they take attempt to commit theft or robbery. Where there is strict security measures, the miscreants are afraid of committing any theft or any such incident because they apprehend that security personnel would prevent them.
Thus the OP bank failed to take security measures inside the bank premises for which charges are deducted for rendering services to the customer.
Thus the failure to take sufficient security measure inside the bank premises is one of the major reasons for such type of incident. The OP bank could not establish that there was absolute fault on the part of the Complainant for occurrence of that incident. The Complainant duly lodged a criminal case and the fate of the criminal case for theft is yet to be ascertained but the Complainant cannot wait for an indefinite period. That apart the criminal case would be ended in a manner where there is no scope for monitory relief.
Thus having assessed the entire evidence in the case record the Commission holds its reasonable that a manner in which the OP bank acted tantamounts to deficiency in service for which the Complainant is entitled to get a reasonable compensation.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and observation made in the foregoing paragraph the Commission is of the view that the Complainant is entitled to get the relief in part.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds.
Points No. 2 & 3 are answered in positive on behalf of the Complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/71/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.10,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the OP. The OP bank, United Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch is directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to get to recover the said sum alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of its realization.
The Complaint case is accordingly disposed of.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
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.
Dictated and corrected by me.
