DHALAI DISTRICT, KAMALPUR

 

 

 

Sri. Swarnajit Sinha

S/o: Sri Sura Chandra Sinha,

of Village- Barasurma, P/S: Kamalpur, 

District- Dhalai, Tripura.

 

The Branch Manager, 

Punjab National Bank, 

Kamalpur Branch,

Kamalpur, Dhalai Tripura

 

 

 

                                                JUDGMENT

 

1. The instant complaint was filed by one Sri Swarnajit Sinha against respondent, The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kamalpur Branch, Kamalpur, Dhalai Tripura under Consumer Protection Act. The complainant sought for compensation of 6% interest for mental agony and harassment in the due course and cost of litigation besides crediting of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) in the SB account of mother of the complainant.

2. The fact of the case as can be gathered from the complaint petition and the evidences is that one Swarnajit Sinha, S/o. Sura Chandra Sinha of Barasurma, PO- Kamalpur, PS- Kamalpur, District- Dhalai, Pin- 799285 (Tripura) instituted a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against The Branch Manager, PNB, Kamalpur Branch, Dhalai (Tripura) interalia alleging that on 10-04-2021, the complainant used the ATM card of his mother Smt Mala Sinha having PNB saving Bank A/C No- 0262010300926, at about 8:30 A.M. at SBI ATM counter, Manikbhander, Kamalpur (Dhalai) for an amount of Rs 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) only but after considerable time no amount was delivered by the said ATM Counter though his mother received a messages that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been deducted (debited) from her said Savings Bank Account.

  It is further claim and allegation of the complainant that after three days on 13/04/2021, the complainant went to PNB (Punjab National Bank) Kamalpur Branch, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura and Verbally informed the matter to the Deputy Manager of said Branch who advised him to call customer service center of PNB and as per his advise the complainant talk with customer service center of PNB and said customer service center after hearing in details from the complainant replied that they would like to talk with account holder and accordingly mother of the complainant communicated the matter of non-delivery of amount and subsequent non credit of the said amount to her account. The customer service center, PNB told the complainant and his mother to communicate with the Branch Manager PNB, Kamalpur Branch. Accordingly they again approached to the Branch Manager PNB, Kamalpur and narrated the whole facts to him, who then told the complainant after verifying CCTV footage that  they will settle the matter.

  It is further contention of the complainant that he and his mother waited for two months but did not get any response from the PNB, Kamalpur Branch and finally on 30th  July 2021 mother of the complainant submitted a request letter addressing the Branch Manager, PNB, Kamalpur Branch to look into the matter of non-credit of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in her S.B. Account bearing No. 0262010300926 but again after passing of long time, the Branch Manager PNB Kamalpur did not give any reply to the request of account holder.

3. After the complaint was lodged, notice was issued upon the respondent. On receiving the notice, the respondent appeared and submitted written statement. Respondent  by written statement denied all allegations made upon it by the complainant. Respondent admitted that the bank authority has provided ATM card in the name of Smt. Mala Sinha against her savings bank account bearing no: 0262010300926 and so the complainant does not have locus standi. In this respect the complainant did not make necessary party to Smt. Mala Sinha which is absolutely unlawful for misjoinder of necessary party.

  It is further contention of the respondent that due to machinery fault of SBI ATM, this incident had occurred and in this regard the Opposite Party was not responsible for that and whereas  this unexpected incident had occurred due to fault of SBI ATM counter then why the complainant should not make necessary party to concerned branch of SBI accordingly.

  It is further contention of the respondent that the instant claim petition is not maintainable due to misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party and also should be dropped immediately.

4. During course of evidence complainant examined, cross-examined and discharged as PW -1. Smt. Mala Sinha and Sri Soumitra Choudhury where examined, cross-examined and discharged as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively.

       During course of evidence PW 1 exhibited original copy of request letter addressed to Branch Manager PNB Kamalpur, Branch- Dhalai dated 30-07-2021 marked as exhibit-1. PW1 also exhibited notarized authorization letter executed by Smt Mala Sinha dated 12.04.2021 marked as exhibit 2. Besides the aforesaid exhibit PW1 also submitted photocopy of SMS received by account holder in her registered mobile dated 10-04-2021, 08:36:09, photocopy of first page of passbook of UBI (PNB) standing in the name Mala Sinha and photocopy of RBI guideline in 2 (two) pages.

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the document submitted by the parties, following issues were framed by the Forum on 12-08-2022:

  (i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in present form, nature and in law?

  (ii) Whether the complainant has any locus standi to represent his mother on the strength of authorization?

  (iii) Whether the complaint is bed for misjoinder or non joinder of necessary parties?

  (iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

  (v) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief or reliefs as prayed for?

6. We have heard the argument of Ld. Counsel of both  the parties at length. It is argued by Ld. Counsel S. S. Choudhury appearing for the complainant that the mother of the complainant Smt. Mala Sinha the account holder authorized her son the complainant above named to file complaint on her behalf and copy of the authorization is already exhibited (exhibit-2).

  It is further argued by Ld. Counsel that after failed transaction at ATM the complainant informed the matter to the Branch Manager, PNB Kamalpur Branch within 3 (three days) from the date of transaction i.e. on 13-04-2021 in presence of PW 3 but till date of filing the instant complaint the Bank Authority  did not resolve the dispute.

  It is further argued by Ld. Counsel that OP, Bank in their written statement in paragraph No. 4 admitted that due to machinery fault of SBI ATM this incident had occurred but in spite of their knowledge the OP Bank did not re-credit the amount which was debited illegally from the SB account of the mother of the complainant and after waiting for long time the mother of the complainant on 30-07-2021 submitted a written request letter to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kamalpur Branch, Kamalpur (exhibit-1)  and informed the branch Manager through written letter about  ailed transaction and illegal deduction of an amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) but said letter remained unanswered till date and this is clear deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Ld. Counsel further relied upon guidelines of RBI in this respect.

  On the contrary Ld. Counsel Subhashish De  appearing for and on behalf of the Branch Manager, PNB, Kamalpur Branch, Dhalai Tripura argued that the instant case is not maintainable as the account holder Mala Sinha as well as SBI Bank have not been made necessary party in the instant case. He further argued that the complainant has no locus standi to institute the instant complaint. Ld. Counsel prays for the dismissal of the instant complaint. 

7. Taking into consideration the submissions of the engaged counsels of the parties and the materials available on record, lets decide the issues of the case.

  Issue No. (i), (ii) and (iii) are taken up together for discussion and decision.

  The term complainant has been defined in section 2(5) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

  "2(5)" complainant means-

                   (i) a consumer; or 

             (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force; or 

               (iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or 

               (iv) the Central Authority; or

          (v) one or more consumers, where there re numerous consumers having the same interest; or

       (vi) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legal representative; or 

         (vii) in case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian;

  Further Section 2(b) of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulation, 2020 defined agent.

  As per the said section,  Agent means a person duly authorized by a party to present any complaint, appeal, revision or to file written version or to file any written submissions and address or plead as the case may be for and on behalf of such a party before the Consumer Commission.

  In the instant case Ld. Counsel for the opposite party/ respondent vehemently argued that the complainant has no locus standi to institute the instant complaint. According to Ld. Counsel Smt. Mala Sinha is the customer of PNB Bank bearing SB account no 0262010300926 and holding ATM Card and so the complaint should only be filed by Smt. Mala Sinha. 

  On the contrary Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that Smt. Mala Sinha the mother of complainant duly authorized her son i.e. complaint to file the complaint and to proceed the matter. In this regard complainant adduced authorization letter exhibit-2.

  On perusal of exhibit 2, it is apparent that Smt. Mala Sinha authorized her son Sri Swarnajit Sinha to filed complaint on her behalf before Consumer Redressal Forum, Kamalpur, Dhalai District for non delivery of amount and to take all necessary step in this regard dated 12.04.2021.

  Though section 2(5) of CP Act 2019 does not include agent but in the Regulation Act 2020, a agent can file complaint or proceed the matter if duly authorized by the consumer. 

  In the instant case the complainant has been duly authorized by the consumer (exhibit-2) Smt. Mala Sinha and accordingly, he instituted the instant complaint.

  In the aforesaid fact and circumstances there is no force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the OP. 

  As per consumer protection act, Section 34 Of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read as follows:-

  Jurisdiction of the District Commission:

  1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration one crore rupees and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed Rupees Twenty Lakh).

  2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction;  

  a) are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or 

  b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Commission is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or 

  c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

  d) the complainant resides or personally work for gain.

  Further Section 69 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Provides limitation period for filing Complaint. According to this Section complaint should be filed within 2 years of arising of cause of action.

  In the case it is not disputed that the case does not within the jurisdiction of this forum. In the instant case the complainant is residing within the   jurisdiction of this forum and has a claim within caps of rupees 20 lakh and has a legitimate cause of action. So, this consumer complaint is maintainable in its present form and nature.

  Lastly, Ld. Counsel for the OP argued that the complaint suffered from necessary party and hence it would fail. According to Ld. Counsel SBI Bank has not been made party besides the consumer Smt. Mala Sinha and so the instant complaint is not maintainable. 

  On perusal of the evidence on record it would reveals that PW-2 is the consumer and she deposed before Forum. It is also apparent on record that an effective order may be passed without making SBI Bank a necessary party. OP in his WO admitted that there was machinery fault in the SBI ATM Counter. When the OP himself  admit that there was fault in SBI ATM Counter there would be no question of making SBI a necessary party. 

  Hence, after considering the submission and evidence on record all the above points are deciding in favor of the complainant. 

8. Point No. (iv) and (v) are taken together for discussion and decision.   

  The Complainant alleged that on 10-04-2021, he used the ATM card of his mother Smt Mala Sinha having PNB saving Bank A/C No- 0262010300926, at about 8:30 A.M. at SBI ATM counter, Manikbhander, Kamalpur (Dhalai) for an amount of Rs 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) only but after considerable time no amount was delivered by the said ATM Counter though his mother received a messages that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been deducted (debited) from her said Saving Bank Account and after three days on 13/04/2021, the complainant went to PNB (Punjab National Bank) Kamalpur Branch, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura and verbally informed the matter to the Deputy Manager of said Branch who advised him to call customer service center of PNB and as per his advise the complainant talk with customer service center of PNB and said customer service center after hearing in details from the complainant replied that they would like to talk with account holder and accordingly mother of the complainant communicated the matter of non-delivery of amount and subsequent non credit of the said amount to her account. The customer service center, PNB told the complainant and his mother to communicate with the Branch Manager PNB, Kamalpur Branch. Accordingly they again approached to the Branch Manager PNB, Kamalpur and narrated the whole facts to him, who then told the complainant after verifying CCTV footage that  they will settle the matter.

  The complainant adduced 3 (three) witnesses including himself besides documents. PW-1 (complainant) categorically stated what has been stated in his complaint petition as well as in affidavit in chief. PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not submit authorization letter at the time filing of request letter before the manager of PNB bank, Kamalpur Branch. He also admitted that he did not verify the matter from SBI Bank, Manikbhandar Branch as well as did not lodge any complaint to SBI Bank, Manikbhandar Branch. PW-2 the consumer in her evidence in chief stated that on 10-04-2021 in the morning she was in urgent need of money so she gave ATM card to her son i.e. complainant to withdraw Rs. 10,000/-. Further she also corroborated the version of PW-1. She admitted in cross-examination that her ATM is used by her son though she did not recollect when she has given the ATM to her son. PW-3 is the neighbor and he was present when PW-1 verbally informed the matter to manager PNB Kamalpur Branch. Further he admitted in cross-examination that he heard from the manager that the manager asked the complainant Swarnajit Sinha to inform the matter to customer care. On perusal of exhibit-1, it is revealed that Smt. Mala Sinha lodged complaint before branch manager, PNB Kamalpur Branch dated 30-07-2021. It is also revealed from the photocopy of SMS that Rs. 10,000/- debited on 10-04-2021 at 08:36:09.

  On the contrary Ld. Counsel for the OP admitted in WO that there was machinery fault in SBI Counter. From the evidence on record it is appeared that OP is not denying the said transaction as well as it's failure. The main contention of the OP Counsel is that instant complaint is not maintainable as lodged by complainant other than the consumer. However, this contention has already been decided. On perusal of RBI guidelines submitted by counsel for the complainant it is apparent that a liability has been fastened upon the bank authority if the matter has not been resolved within stipulated time  period.

  It is apparent from the evidence of the PW-3 that PW-1 inform the matter to branch manager, PNB Kamalpur Branch. It is also apparent from exhibit-2 that a formal written complaint was lodged by PW-2 dated 30-07-2022 but the complainant or his mother (Consumer) never heard in respect of their grievances.

  This bundle of facts shows that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party/respondent, The Branch manger, PNB, Kamalpur Branch. 

9. Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

  That, the consumer complaint bearing no. CC/01/2022 is hereby allowed against opposite party/ respondent, The Branch Manager, PNB, Kamalpur Branch. The OP/respondent, The Branch Manager, PNB, Kamalpur Branch is hereby directed to re-credit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousands) only in the account of Smt. Mala Sinha bearing SB account no.0262010300926 and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousands) only to Smt. Mala Sinha for harassment and mental agony. Further OP is directed to pay litigation cost of  sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousands) only. All the aforesaid payment shall be paid within 2 (two) months of the date of Judgment.

10. In default, the complainant may put the order/Judgment under execution by filing an Execution Application  as per provision of the CP Act and rules made thereunder.

11. Hence the case is disposed of on contest.

12. Office is directed to supply the copies of judgment free of cost to the parties.   

13.          The case is thus disposed of on contest.

14.          Make necessary entry in the relevant register. 

 

                             PRONOUNCED

 

(DIPALI SINHA)                                 (S. DEO SINGH)                      (H.L. DEBBARMA)

 

MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT                                MEMBER

DISTRICT                                            DISTRICT                                   DISTRICT

CONSUMER                                       CONSUMER                             CONSUMER

  DISPUTES                                         DISPUTES                                 DISPUTES

REDRESSAL                                      REDRESSAL                              REDRESSAL

COMMISSION                                  COMMISSION                          COMMISSION

DHALAI TRIPURA :                      DHALAI TRIPURA:                  DHALAI TRIPURA:

KAMALPUR KAMALPUR KAMALPUR