DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kara, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Dated the 30th day of July,2016
C.D.Case No.18 of 2014
Sri Sashikanta Sethi
S/O Baisnab Charan Sethi
At- Saradpur ,Po- Bhagibindha
Ps- Dhamnagar ,Dist- Bhadrak
................... Complainant
Versus
- The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Main Branch , Apartibindha
- Regional Provident Fund Commission
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
341 , Bhabisyanidhi Bhawan , Bandra (East)
Mumbai , Maharastra- 400051
For the Complainant: Sri Gadadhar Bal and others, Advocate
For OP No. 1 : Sri Arun Kumar Mishra , Advocate
For OP No. 2 : Jayaram Mohanty , EO , P.F , Balasore Authorized Person
Date of hearing : 25.05.2016
Date of order : 30.07.2016
SHRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER:
The dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties.
The back ground facts disclosed in the complaint are to the affect that the Regional Provident Fund Commission , Mumbai , Maharastra issued two account payee cheques bearing No. 782944 and 475142 for Rs 3255/- and Rs 1525/- respectively to the OP No. 2 bank on dt. 29.01.2008 on settlement of withdrawal application in EPF account No. MH/44474/1040 with an instruction to credit the cheque amount to the saving bank account bearing No. 01190023403 of the complainant maintained with OP No. 1 bank at Bhadrak . Awaiting for a week or more the complainant wanted to withdraw the amount from the OP No. 1 bank but did not do so as the cheque amount was not credited to his account. Being disappointed, the complainant enquired to know from the OP No. 1 bank officials as to why the amount of cheques issued by EPFO has not been credited to his SB account and in reply the OP bank told that the chequeshave been returned to OP No. 2 without disclosing the reason of such return . It is also further stated by the complainant that he has communicated twice on dt. 09.09.2010 and dt. 19.10.2011 through advocate requesting the OP No. 1 bank to credit the amount to his account but to his ill luck the OP No. 1 bank neither responded the communication nor credited to the SB account of the complainant . The complainant, being deprived of required service from the bank, proceeded to Mumbai EPFO from where he could know that the cheques in discussion have been cleared on dt. 07.02.2008. But the cheque amount is not credited to the SB account of the complaint. The willful negligence on part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and as such it is prayed by the complainant to issue direction to the Ops to credit the amount to his SB a/c and to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Ops resisted the case and contested the claim that complaint is not maintainable in law nor in facts . The OP No. 1 has submitted that the SB account number of the complainant as appears in the complaint , i.e, 01190023402 does not belong to him and the said account number has been allotted to another deposit namely Sri Kamala Kanta Mallkick of Naripur , Astal , Bhadrak .
Hence the complainant is not the proper person in favor of whom the cheque was drawn and therefore the complaint is not maintainable . OP No. 1 in the written version focused only on wrong account number which does not belong to the complainant .
OP No. 2 submitted the written version wherein it is stated that the EPFO, Maharastra has settled the PF & EPS claim of complainant and two cheques bearing No. 782944 and 475142 amounting to Rs 3255/- and Rs 1527/- respectively were issued on 29.07.2008 which were to be credited to the saving bank account No. 01190023403 of the complainant after bearing cleared On dt. 07.02.2008 as reveals from the office record of OP No. 2 , the above mentioned cheques along with an advice letter issued by OP No. 2 , where in it is clearly mentioned as “In case the cheque does not relate to your branch , the same may be returned to this office immediately, if payment is taken , bank shall be responsible for interest ” , but the OP No. 1 acted upon at their sweet will violating the instruction of OP No. 2 . Finally the OP No. 2 has submitted to have properly performed/executed their duties and hence not responsible for non-receipt of settled claim amount by the complainant and prayed to dismiss the case against OP No. 2 .
Undisputedly , the complainant was a claimant for settlement of his Provident Fund and EPS from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai , Maharastra and in consideration of the claim application OP No. 2 has settled the claim and issued two a/c payee cheques bearing No. 782944 and 475142amounting to Rs 3255/- and Rs 1527/- respectively on dt. 29.01.2008 along with a latter advising OP no. 1 bank to credit the amount to the SB a/c of the complainant. On perusal of records it is found that the letter dt. 30.01.2008 EPFO office , Bandra , Mumbai bears the SB account Number as 01190023402 of Sri Sushant Sethi , the complainant but on the cheques the SB a/c Number has been mentioned as 01190023403 of Sri Sushant sethi . on the other hand the complainant in the PF and EPS application from (Ext-‘B’) has also mentioned his SB account number as 01190023403 which is matching to the account number appears on both the cheques . Further it reveals from the cheque clearing status report issued on dt. 30.06.2015 furnished by OP No. 2 that both the cheques have been cleared on dt. 07.02.2008 which has been credited to the SB account of complainant maintained with SBI , Bhadrak branch . In response to a series of correspondence made by OP No. 2 , the SBI, institutional banking division , Mumbai Main Branch has informed on 14.09.2015 to OP No. 2 that the cheques have been cleared on 07.02.2008 and the Bhubaneswar Branch has paid the amount in issuing bankers cheques advising to contact SBI , Bhubaneswar Branch for more information and also enclosed the copies cheques along with Xerox copies of the clearing vouchers which proves that the OP No. 1 bank has received the advice from SBI Mumbai Main Branch to credit the SB account No- 01190023403 of the complainant . The OP No. 1 has taken the plea of wrong account number . If the account number was wrong, the OP No. 1 could have returned the cheques to OP no. 2 mentioning the reason thereof, rather sent the cheques to Mumbai Main Branch of it’s bank for clearance and as such the plea taken by the OP no. 1 bank is not justified and does not hold good in the present context.
In view of the facts as above, it is clear that the OP no. 2 has responded to the grievances of the complainant and has taken prompt action in the matter and therefore OP No. 2 has not caused any delay in providing service to the complainant . It is made clear from the facts of foregoing paras that the inordinate delay has been caused by OP no. 1 which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and therefore the OP no. 1 is liable to compensate . Accordingly it is ordered.
ORDER
The complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no. 1. OP No. 1 is directed to pay the amount of cheques of Rs 4782/- along with interest at bank rate , that is @ 9% P.A from 07.02.2008 till the date of payment and 2000/- towards compensation and Rs 1000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of this ordered .
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 30th July, 2016 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
