Date of Filing: 09-07-2015 Date of Final Order: 31-12-2015
The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Utpal Kr. Roy has Savings Bank Account being No.011306164075 to the State Bank of India, Khagrabari Branch, which was remained inactive for a time being due to non-transaction. On 30/01/2015 the Complainant applied for issuing Rupay Debit Card against his existing Savings Bank Account No.01190010898 to the O.P bank. But the Complainant was informed by the O.P bank that the said account was not operative and to submit photocopies of identity proof of the Complainant. After receiving the photocopies of identity proof i.e. Voter I Card, Driving License, Ration Card etc, the O.P bank registered a new savings account being No.011306164075. But passing after two months, the Complainant did not get the said debit card as he applied. He was also informed by the O.P bank that as soon as the said debit card would be issued to the Complainant. On 10th April, 2015 the Complainant faced inconvenience in withdrawing money from his said account. Then the O.P bank informed to the Complainant that his savings account is inoperative and the Complainant again submited his photocopies of identity proof after verified original documents for solution of problem. On 20/04/2015 the Complainant deposited Rs.1,000/- to the said account being No.011306164075. But on 12/05/2015 the Complainant again faced inconvenience in withdrawing money from his account due to the said account still inoperative, for that the bank authority did not pay money to him. On 14/05/2015 the Complainant lodged written complaint to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India regarding the problem of credit transaction is available and debit transaction is blocked. On 18/05/2015 the Complainant lodged another written complaint to the said Chief Manager regarding the said problem but in vain. After that the Complainant lodged a complaint at Consumer Affairs & Fare Business Practices, Cooch Behar. In the mean time the Complainant received a letter along with a State Bank Classic Debit Card issued against his savings account. The Complainant noticed that he get State Bank Classic Debit Card instead of Rupay Debit Card as he applied. The Complainant wanted to raise this issue but get no satisfactory result. On 23/06/2015 the Complainant received a letter No.40/48 dated 11/06/2015 issued by the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Khagrabari Branch. The said Chief Manager informed to the Complainant through the said letter dated 11/06/2015 that inconveniences caused in transaction service and issuing of Rupay Debit Card due to technical problem. However, this clarification is not substantial on the ground that there was no technical failure in case of credit transactions, but in case of debit transactions there were repeated failures at a time. Besides there was no remark on the issuing of State Bank Classic Debit Card instead of Rupay Debit Card. On 24/06/2015 the Complainant wanted to give return back the said State Bank Classic Debit Card but the O.P bank did not co-operate with him, rather suggested that to return it by registered post.
Due to such activities of the O.P, the Complainant suffering from mental pain & agony and unnecessary harassment. The O.P bank also adopted his unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in the event for issuing of State Bank Classic Debit Card instead of Rupay Debit Card and the credit transaction is available and debit transaction is blocked.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P bank to pay (i) Rs.10,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and harassment, (ii) Rs.1,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P, Chief Manager, S.B.I., Khagrabari Branch has contested the case denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P is that the O.P bank has migrated the Complainant’s Savings Bank Account nor they open the new account. Because before launched Core Banking system his account No. was 01190010898 and after migration his present Savings Bank Account No.11306164075 which is also certified by the O.P bank Chief Manager.
The O.P further contended that the Complainant has filed two written complaint before the O.P bank on 14/05/2015 & 18/05/2015 and after receiving the said complaint this O.P bank has enquired the matter and after enquiry the O.P has also issued one letter to the Complainant on 11/06/2015 mentioning that the cause of delay in activating the Complainant’s account due to non-relationship with the O.P bank for a long period and due to non-submission of KYC or documents and the said documents after putting in the system which will take time and thereafter the said account became operative and the Complainant has also withdraw from the said account.
The O.P stated in his W/V that the Complainant has applied for one Rupay Debit Card before the O.P bank and after receiving his application due to non-operative of account and due to certain technical problem, the system of the O.P bank did not accepted the same and lastly the said request for Rupay Debit Card has also put into the system on 21/05/2015 and thereafter the said Rupay Debit Card has also delivered to the Complainant. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank.
Ultimately, this answering O.P prayed for dismissal of the case with sufficient costs.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant, Utpal Kr. Roy has a Savings Bank Account being No.011306164075 in the bank of the O.P, State Bank of India, Khagrabari ADB Branch and he has been making transactions with the said bank. So, the Complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The Branch office of the O.P bank is situated at Khagrabari, Cooch Behar within jurisdiction of the Forum and the complaint value of the present case is Rs.11,000/-, which is far below than maximum limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.
The Complainant, Utpal Kr. Roy in his complaint and evidence stated that he has a Savings Bank Account being No.011306164075 to the State Bank of India, Khagrabari ADB Branch.
“Annexure-1” is the Xerox copy of the front page of the Savings Bank Account being No.011306164075 of the Complainant.
“Annexure-2” is the Xerox copy of transaction particulars of the said Savings Bank Account for the period from 25/12/2014 to 13/09/2015.
In his evidence, the Complainant further stated that his said Savings Bank Account remained inactive for time being due to non-transaction.
The Complainant further stated that on 30/01/2015 the Complainant applied for issuing Rupay Debit Card against his existing Savings Bank Account No.01190010898 to the O.P bank. But the Complainant was informed by the O.P bank that the said account was not operative and to submit photocopies of identity proof of the Complainant. After receiving the photocopies of identity proof i.e. Voter I Card, Driving License, Ration Card etc, the O.P bank registered a new savings account being No.011306164075. But passing after two months, the Complainant did not get the said debit card as he applied.
The Complainant further stated that on 10th April, 2015 the Complainant faced inconvenience in withdrawing money from his said account. Then the O.P bank informed to the Complainant that his savings account is inoperative and the Complainant again submited his photocopies of identity proof after verified original documents for solution of problem. On 20/04/2015 the Complainant deposited Rs.1,000/- to the said account being No.011306164075. But on 12/05/2015 the Complainant again faced inconvenience in withdrawing from his account due to the said account still inoperative, for that the bank authority did not pay money to him.
The Complainant in his evidence also stated that on 14/05/2015 the Complainant lodged written complaint to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India regarding the problem of credit transaction is available and debit transaction is blocked. On 18/05/2015 the Complainant lodged another written complaint to the said Chief Manager regarding the said problem but in vain.
“Annexure-3 & 4” are Xerox copy of two letters dated 14/05/2015 and 18/05/2015 by which the Complainant informed to the O.P bank about inoperative status of the bank account and alleged about intentional negligence towards issuing “Rupay Debit Card”.
The Complainant further stated in his evidence that the Complainant lodged a complaint at Consumer Affairs & Fare Business Practices, Cooch Behar. In the mean time the Complainant received a letter along with a State Bank Classic Debit Card issued against his savings account. The Complainant noticed that he get State Bank Classic Debit Card instead of Rupay Debit Card as he applied. The Complainant wanted to raise this issue but get no satisfactory result.
“Annexure-5” is the copy of the application in prescribed form filed by the Complainant against the O.P before Consumer Affairs, Regional Office, Cooch Behar.
“Annexure-11” is the copy of Mediation Report dated 23/06/2015 issued by Consumer Affairs, Regional Office, Cooch Behar which reveals that due to absence of the O.P and the Complainant intended to move to Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the said complaint was dropped.
The Complainant further stated that he received a letter dated 11/06/2015 from the O.P bank, alleging that inconvenience caused in transaction service and issuing of Rupay Debit Card due to technical problem.
“Annexure-12” is the Xerox copy of the said letter dated 11/06/2015.
“Annexure-7” of the Complainant is the copy of letter addressed to him issued by Chief General Manager, State Bank of India regarding sending of Classic Debit Card in association with Rupay Debit Card to the Complainant.
“Annexure-8” is the net copy regarding Jandhan Yojana.
“Annexure-9” is the Net copy regarding Rupay Card – Jandhan Yojana.
On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P bank that there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank and the case is liable to be dismissed.
It is the first allegation of the Complainant that his S/B Account number was 01190010898 and he applied for Rupay Debit Card against his existing S/B Account number. The O.P bank informed him that his account was not operative and asked him to submit photo-copies of Identity proof. But on receiving said documents the O.P bank registered a new Savings Bank Account No.011306164075.
On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P bank that before launching Core Banking System, account number of the Complainant was 01190010898 and after introduction of Core Banking System and after migration his present S/B Account number became 011306164075 and no new account was opened by them.
“Annexure-A” of the O.P bank i.e. the copy of the Certificate shows that after introduction of Core Banking System instead of old Account Number 01190010898, S/B Account Number of the Complainant has been re-numbered as 011306164075.
We find that there was no illegality or irregularity in this regard.
More so, it was caused no harm to the Complainant.
Admittedly, the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant was inoperative condition for the time being due to non-transaction.
It is the case of the Complainant that after submission of photo-copy of identity proof, his account became operative and on 20/04/2015, he deposited Rs.1,000/-.
“Annexure-2” of the Complainant i.e. Statement of Account of the Complainant shows that on 20/04/2015, he deposited Rs.1,000/-.
It is the further case of the Complainant that on 12/05/2015 the Complainant again faced inconvenience in withdrawing money from his account due to the said account still inoperative.
But “Annexure-2” of the Complainant i.e. the Statement of Account shows that on 02/05/2015, 15/05/2015 and 25/06/2015 transactions were made in the said Account.
We further find that the Complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that actually on 12/05/2015, his said account was again became inoperative.
So, we have no other alternative but to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that his Savings Bank Account was again became inoperative on 12/05/2015 and he faced any inconvenience.
Regarding Debit Card it is the case of the Complainant that he applied for Rupay Debit Card but he got State Bank of India Classic Debit Card.
It is also the case of the Complainant that three month inordinate delay has been made by the O.P bank in issuing Debit Card to him.
On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P bank that the Complainant has applied one Rupay Debit Card before the answering O.P bank and after receiving his application due to non-operative of the account and due to certain technical problem the system of the O.P bank did not accepted the same and lastly the said request for Rupay Debit Card has also put into the system on 21/05/2015 and thereafter the said Rupay Debit Card has also delivered to the Complainant.
Admittedly, the Savings Bank Account in question of the Complainant was inoperative for long time due to non-transaction by the Complainant and technical problem in the system in accepting Debit Card application of the Complainant may not be ruled out as such problem of machine may occurred at any time.
It is the main contention of the Complainant that he applied for Rupay Debit Card but State Bank Classic Debit Card was issued to him.
But there is nothing to show that actually the Complainant applied for Rupay Debit Card or Classic Debit Card.
By filing guide line of National Payment Corporation of India regarding Rupay Debit Card, “Annexure-B” Ld. Agent/Adv. of the O.P bank drew our attention to the clause “Issuers” which shows that Banks of India are authorized to issue Rupay Debit Cards to their customers for use at the ATM, POS terminals and e-commerce website. About 240 banks including all major public sector banks currently issue Rupay Debit Cards to their customers.
He further submitted that as per rules and regulations, the O.P bank has issued Rupay Debit Card to the Complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank.
At the time of argument by showing Jandhan Yojana Nets the Complainant tried convinced the Form that if he got a new Rupay Debit Card he will get (1) New Zero Balance Account, (2) Life Cover Insurance, (3) Accidental Cover and (4) Over Draft of Rs.5,000/- with other facility.
But we find from the said net copy that to get facility of such scheme an account under such Jandhan Yojana scheme is to be opened by the Complainant.
Evidently, the Complainant has not opened any such new account to take such facility.
Considering an overall matter into consideration and materials on record, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P bank.
Thus both points are decided against the Complainant.
Accordingly, the case fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/62/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any costs.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar