Date of filing : 25.01.2018
Judgment : Dt.05.12.2019
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Dr. Minu Biswas alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Behala Branch and (2) General Manager, State Bank of India.
Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant has been holding an S.B. Account bearing No.11170208106 of SBI Behala Branch and deposited some amount in the fixed deposit scheme of SBI and obtained certificates accordingly. The Complainant has stated that one of the term deposits bearing No.30276513742 owned by the Complainant has been denied to be encashed by the Bank on maturity against which the Complainant has made several complaints before the SBI appellate authority but no effective step has been taken by the Bank.
It is stated by the Complainant that the OP No.1 by a letter dt.23.2.2015 intimated her that the Bank had erroneously linked two different customers having same name under same CIF and requested the Complainant to contact the OP Bank along with her fixed deposit certificate, Voter ID Card and PAN Card and receiving said letter the Complainant went to the SBI Behala Branch office on 24.2.2015 and sensing trouble lodged a complaint with Parnasree Police Station and contacted one Mr. R. Barada (Asst. General Manager, SBI, Behala) over phone. It is further stated by the Complainant that SBI Behala Branch informed her that a term deposit bearing No.30276513742 amounting Rs.15,103/- belongs to another Minu Biswas of 23, Gopal Mishra Lane, Kolkata-700034 and receiving such information, the Complainant sent mail dt.8.5.2015 & 25.5.2015 stating that as per information received from the Bank there are two different TDR, between those one of which contained a maturity amount Rs.16,103/- belongs to her, but, in spite of receiving said information the OPs by mail dt.19.5.2015 informed the Complainant that the disputed TDR belongs to another Minu Biswas of 23 Gopal Mishra Lane, Behala and the matter had been referred to the Parnasree P.S. for investigation and ultimately deleted the said TDR from her account and asked the Complainant to handover the disputed TDR to the SBI Behala Branch. The Complainant has further stated that she submitted application under RTI but the Bank authority did not reply properly and declined to entertain further communication and being aggrieved the Complainant by filing the instant complaint has prayed for direction upon the OPs to renew the STDR bearing No.30276513742 from the date of maturity for five years, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The Complainant annexed several documents including STDR bearing Account No.30276513742, mail dt.31.3.2017 issued by Executive Secretary to Chairman, letter dt.23.2.2015 issued by Branch Manager, mail dt.12.4.2015, reply to the letter dt.23.2.2015, complaint lodged by the Complainant on 24.2.2015, mail dt.7.5.2015, reply dt.19.5.2015 from the end of Bank, application under RTI, first page of Bank Account of the Complainant, letter dt.8.5.2015 issued by the Complainant.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia that the Complainant have an SB Account bearing No.11170208106 with the SBI Behala Branch and another Account bearing No.11170208117 has been opened by one Minu Biswas of 23, Gopal Mishra Road, Behala Kolkata-700 034 and the said Minu Biswas deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- to invest the same in a Term Deposit and a term deposit was issued in favour of Minu Biswas which was in custody of the said Minu Biswas. It is stated by the OPs that during the implementation of CBS, the term deposit belongs to Minu Biswas of 23 Gopal Mishra Lane, was erroneously linked to the Complainants customer profile and there is only duplicate marked term deposit certificate dt.27.12.2011 with the record of the Complainant and the said duplicate term deposit certificate has been produced by the Complainant on 28.12.2017 for renewal. It is further stated by the OPs that original term deposit along with original deposit sheet was produced before them on demand by the another Minu Biswas and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Complainant by adducing evidence reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint in respect of which OP filed questionnaire and Complainant filed reply. Similarly, OPs adduced evidence followed by cross examination in the form of questionnaire. Written notes of argument filed on behalf of OP.
In course of argument, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant submits that his client possesses the original STDR.
Ld. Advocate on behalf of OP submits that the Complainant failed to disclose the source of amount deposited as term deposit.
Points for determination
- Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OPs
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 & 2 : Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admittedly the Complainant is the holder of account being No. 11170208106 issued by the OP No.1. It is also admitted that the Complainant deposited some amount with the OP No.1 in the term deposit scheme.
The Complainant stated that she by letter dt.23.2.2015 was asked to contact OP No.1 along with her fixed deposit certificate, PAN Card etc. It appears from letter dt.23.2.2015 issued by the OP No.1 that due to their error the OP Bank somehow linked two accounts and a TDR belongs to one Minu Biswas of 23, Ganesh Mishra Lane was erroneously mentioned in the account of the Complainant and the Complainant was directed to appear before the Bank authority and to produce Fixed Deposit Certificate, PAN Card etc. It further appears from endorsement made on the said letter that in compliance to the said direction, the Complainant appeared on SBI Behala Branch on the next date i.e. on 24.2.2015 which suggests that the Complainant produced her fixed deposit certificate PAN card etc. as per direction of the Bank. However, no endorsement has been made regarding the documents produced by the Complainant.
The Complainant has stated that she deposited an amount of Rs.16,103/- in a term deposit scheme. It appears from TDR filed by the Complainant that an amount of Rs.16,103/- was deposited on 23.11.2013 maturity value of the said deposit as mentioned therein is Rs.18,421/- and date of maturity on 27.5.2015. It appears that the said TDR bears the name of the Complainant as it holder whose PAN card bearing No.CTSP53149F belongs to the Complainant. On perusal of e-mail dt.31.03.2017 sent to the Complainant by Executive Secretary to the Chairman that the Complainant was denied to be paid the maturity amount against STDR No.30276513742 and on perusal of e-mail dt.12.8.2015 sent by the OPs that the OPs asked the Complainant to return a duplicate STDR bearing A/C No.30276513742 amounting Rs.10,000/- issued in favour of one Minu Biswas who happened to be illiterate and which was erroneously linked with the customer profile of the Complainant and said amount of Rs.10,000/-/ was debited from the Account of the said Minu Biswas. However, the instant complaint has been filed by the Complainant for non-payment of ST DR bearing A/c No.30276513742 against deposited amount of Rs.16,103/-, value date of which was 23.11.2013 and maturity date on 27.5.2015 but as per e mail dt.12.8.2015 said Minu Biswas deposited Rs.10,000/- only on 15.11.2007. Though the account Nos of these two STDR amount Rs.16,103/- and Rs.10,000/- (as claimed by the Bank) are same but the date of depositing said amounts and maturity dates are different.
In course of argument, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP prayed for some time to file documents mentioned in their written version and has claimed that the Complainant filed duplicate copy of disputed STDR for liquidation of the said term deposit. However, original STDR of Rs.16,103/- bearing A/C No.30276513742 was submitted by the Complainant before this Forum which reveals that the Complainant is in possession of said certificate and, therefore, claim of the OPs are not sustainable. It is well settled that issuance of duplicate certificate depends upon fulfillment of some pre-conditions and the same has been issued by the Bank without taking the same on consideration and, therefore, the liability cannot be put on the recipient of the duplicate STDR.
The Complainant has alleged that she approached the Bank for renewal of her ST DR to be matured on 27.5.2015 but instead of renewing the same, the OP Bank issued letter dt.23.2.2015. However, while going through the evidence filed by the Complainant, it is noticed that the event has not been mentioned in proper chronological order which suggests that there may be some communication gap regarding disputed certificate. Be that as it may, but that cannot debar the Complainant from getting relief.
Moreover, the OPs failed to file any document to substantiate their defence and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.
The Complainant prayed for compensation and cost. In our view these Complainant has been being harassed for a long period and compelled to file the case and, therefore, she is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.
Point Nos.1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the Consumer Complainant succeeds in part.
Hence
ordered
That CC/34/2018 is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to refund maturity value of Rs.18,421/-in respect of certificate bearing A/C No.30276513742 within one month from the date of this order. The OPs are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost within abovementioned period in default, the entire amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a.
