DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;BHADRAK

………………

C.D.Case No.20 of 2015

Sri Nabaghana Pagal, aged about 67 years,

S/o: Late Rama Chandra Pagal,

At: Naripur Taxi Stand,

Tahasil Road,

PO/Dist:Bhadrak

                                                   ……………..Complainant

                         (Versus)

1.         The Chief General Manager,

            State Bank of India,

            Local Head Office,

            Pt.Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

            Bhubaneswar

2.         The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Main Branch, Bhadrak

3.         Manager (P),

State Bank of India,

            Main Branch, Bhadrak

                                                          ………………..Opp.Parties

Order No.15 dt.15.10.2015:

            This case has been filed by the Complainant, who is a senior citizen, aged about 67 years alleging deficiency in Banking service against the O.Ps.

            The case of the Complainant in nutshell is that on being superannuated from the services of State Bank of India, he receiving pension. The S.B.Account No.11403645204 of the Complainant stands in the O.Ps Branch and the monthly pension is deposited in the said account. The Complainant had incurred a pension loan of Rs.2.00 lacs from O.Ps. Complainant came to know from his aforesaid S.B.Account that a sum of Rs.562/- has been illegally debited by O.Ps on 29.01.2015. Accordingly, Complainant met the O.P.No.3 in the Bank on 12.02.2015 at 3.30 PM and wanted to know the reason for such illegal deduction. O.P.No.3 told that loan processing charge of Rs.562/- has been deducted from his account. Complainant wanted to convince the O.P.No.3 that the ex-employees of State Bank are not required to pay the processing charge of loan as per Circular No.PB/PL/42 dt.07.10.2014 of the Bank.    It has been alleged by the Complainant that  the O.P.No.3 read the said circular and thrown it over the face of the Complainant in presence of other customers and public saying that processing charge shall be levied from each and Pension loanee.     When the Complainant vehemently opposed such illegal deduction of processing charge from ex-employee of S.B.I. violating the standing circular, the O.P.No.3 Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, using vulgar languages pushed the Complaint out from his table and then drag the Complainant with his muscle power to the Chamber of O.P.No.2 holding the right hand of the Complainant in presence of Bank Staff, customer & public. Thereafter, the Complainant intimated this fact to O.P.No.2 who also did not take any action for such nuisance behavior of O.P.No.3.  Complainant further states that he is  a senior citizen, a respected person in the locality, a patient whose bypass surgery has been conducted recently, not only humiliated in the eye of public and customers but also his reputation lowered down in the eyes of  public. The CCTV of O.Ps on 12.02.2015 at 3.30 PM has recorded the entire episode in their camera. The misbehavior of O.P.No.3 put the Complainant into serious mental agony for which he underwent treatment and spent a lot on this score to recoup from illness. Complainant also lodged written complaint before the Town P.S., Bhadrak on 13.02.2015 against the O.P.No.3. Complainant also brought this fact to the notice of the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Bhubaneswar, Chairman, SBI, Central Office, Mumbai and Chief General Manager, SBI, Bhubaneswar. In the meanwhile the Complainant came to know that the illegally debited amount of Rs.562/- has been credited to the aforesaid S.B.Account on 13.02.2015. Complainant further states that the O.Ps whimsically debit the amount and credit the said amount at their sweet will. Had the illegally debited processing charge been credited to the account of Complainant without his approach, the present unpleasant situation would not have arisen. So, alleging deficiency in service and negligence in duty by the O.Ps. the Complainant filed this case on 24.02.2015 praying for a direction to O.Ps to produce the CCTV footage of Bank premises dt.12.02.2015 at 3.30 PM, which has recorded the entire mishap, and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment suffered by him.

            O.Ps filed written version pleading inter-alia that it is not correct to say a sum of Rs.562/- was illegally debited by O.Ps.  It is usual process in the computerized bank. Though it has been debited, again it has been credited and the act is no way deficiency to the service. All other averments made in the complainant are denied by O.Ps.  According to O.Ps their Bank is computerized Bank. The posting of interest, the deduction of processing charge and other acts such as ATM charges etc. used to done as per the programme of computer. If any defect is brought to the notice of the staff, the Bank as early as possible  used to rectify the same. The complainant admittedly retired person from Bank and the Bank always pays due respect to its customer. When the fact brought to the notice of Bank, it was immediately complied. The Complainant on false allegation and flimsy story filed this case in this Forum. The Complainant himself was the part & parcel of the Bank as he is the ex-staff. There must be some difference in the previous system of work, when the work was done manually and in the present computerized system. The Complainant should have considered this. However, throughout the complaint petition and in consideration of fact and circumstance of the case there is no deficiency in service and there is no negligence towards customer by the Bank. Hence, they prayed dismissal of the case.

            We have heard the Ld.Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the documents filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has filed xerox copy of his S.B.Account No.11403645204, copy of e-circular No.NBG/PBU/PL-PERLOANS/42/2014-15 dt.09.10.2014, copy of Arrangement Letter against loan account No.34645963295 of the Complainant and copy of ICC No.227 of 2015 filed before the Ld.SDJM,Bhadrak on 13.03.2015. Ld.Counsel for Complainant submitted that the O.P.No.3 illegally and forcibly deducted Rs,562/- manually from the account of the Complainant(not automatically by computer process) by taking signature on debit voucher in spite of the protest of the Complainant on 29.01.2015 with circular No.42 dt.07.10.2014.  O.P.No.3 also assaulted, abused in obscene and thrown the said circular to the face of the Complainant. O.Ps 1 & 2 after being informed about the matter by the Complainant they remained silent. The O.Ps credited the illegally debited loan processing fee of  Rs.562/- on 13.02.2015 i.e. after 15 days  of the date of debit and protest. Therefore, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service. It has been specifically pleaded by the Ld.Counsel for O.Ps that posting of interest, deduction of processing charges and other acts are done automatically as per the programme of computer. The loan processing fee of Rs.562/- debited under usual process in computerized Bank has been credited to the account of the Complainant. The other allegations such as the O.P.No.3 used vulgar languages to Complainant, pushed the Complainant from his table and then dragged the Complainant to the Chamber of O.P.No.2 are denied by O.Ps. As such, no deficiency has been committed by O.Ps.

            Admittedly, Rs.562/- was debited from the S.B.Account of the Complainant on 29.01.2015 towards loan processing charge and the said amount was again credited to the said S.B.Account of the Complainant on 13.02.2015. This fact finds support from the S.B.Account No.11403645204. As such, there has been delay of 15 days in crediting the amount to the account of the Complainant. It is no doubt true that the Complainant availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from  O.P.-Bank on 29.01.2015 to meet personal expenses as a SBI Pensioner. While going through the SBI Circular No.PB/PL/42 dt.07.10.2014, issued by the Chief General Manager(PB), it is found that that Processing Fee is not applicable to SBI Pensioners. If the Circular says that the SBI Pensioners (Ex-employees of SBI) like the Complainant are not liable to pay Processing Fee, deduction of Rs.562/- from the account of Complainant by the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service. It is quite but natural that the Complainant like other SBI Pensioners would raise objection for such illegal deduction. To err is human being. If at all the processing fee of Rs.562/- was deducted by O.Ps on 29.01.2015 due to oversight, but the said amount could have been credited instantaneously on the protest of Complainant before O.P.No.3 on 12.02.2015. Admittedly, Rs.562/- debited towards processing fee, has been credited to the account of the Complainant on the next day i.e. 13.02.2015 after much interlocution with O.P.No.3 which compelled the Complainant to file the present case and ICC No.227 of 2015 before the Ld.SDJM, Bhadrak. We have nothing to say about filing of Complaint Case by the Complainant which is sub-judice before the Ld.SDJM, Bhadrak but we are concerned about deficiency in service committed by O.Ps. The O.Ps have taken the stand that automatically computer debited Rs.562/- from the account of the Complainant towards processing fee. According to Complainant the O.P.No.3 deducted Rs.562/- manually from his account taking signature on debit voucher on 29.01.2015. We do no disbelieve this fact of the Complainant as because he was an Ex-employee of SBI. We  are convinced that the O.P.No.3 manually debited Rs.562/- from the account of the Complainant ignoring the issued Circular. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Computer automatically debited the processing fee, here we may say that Computer is manmade and unless data is provided it cannot function accurately. So looking from different angles, it is proved that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and negligence in duty by illegally debiting Rs.562/- on 29.01.2015 and again crediting the said amount to the S.B.Account of the Complainant ignoring the issued circular dt.07.10.2014 of the S.B.I. and thus put the Complainant into financial and mental agony who is aged about 67 years.  It would be out of place to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994 1 SCC 243) has been held that ;                                   

“Today the issue thus is not only of award of compensation but of award of compensation but who should bear the brunt. The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio-economic outlook. The authority empowered to function under a statue while exercising power discharge public duty. It has to act to sub-serve general welfare and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and bonafidely, loss may accrue to any person. And he may claim compensation which may in circumstances be payable. But where the duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose? In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner, which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of administrative authority. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same. It was never more necessary than today when even social obligations are regulated by grant of statutory powers. The test of permissive form of grant is over. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society. When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers’ money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not light, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing proportionately where there are more than one functionaries”.                                                      

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the Complainant is an Ex-Employee of the SBI and the processing fee has already credited to the account of the Complainant, we think it just and proper to award a nominal compensation against the O.Ps. Accordingly, it is ordered:

                                                             O R D E R 

            In the result, we allow the complaint on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand)only to the Complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.