The case of the complainant is in brief is that he was an account holder of SBI, Siliguri Court More Branch, Siliguri (OP No.3) and during that period of running the a/c No. 20052097434 on 22.02.2017 complainant visited that Branch and presented one self cheque worth Rs. 49,000/- for withdrawal from his above account but said cheque was not entertained by OP No.3 SBI Branch. Complainant asked the reason for refusal of payment but no answer came.
Contd….P/2.
-:2:-
It is further contended in the petition of complaint that again on 27.02.2017 complainant visited OP No.3 Branch for depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to and in favour of his grandson’s A/C for his tutorial expenditure purpose but the said deposit was also refused. Then again on 02.03.2017 the complainant further attended the OP No.3 Branch of Bank for withdrawal of money by his cheque being No. 296103 dtd. 02.03.2017 amounting Rs.29,000/- but OP No.3 refused to entertain the same also.
It is stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant is a pension holder and has been suffering from different ailments like diabetes undergone bye-pass surgery and money is required for his own treatment purpose as well as for meeting his daily needs. The complainant on 06.03.2017 sent one letter of complaint with protest to all the OPs for rectification of such negligent service and in reply by a letter dtd. 07.03.2019 the OPs assured the complainant and asked to wait but OPs failed to respond. On 24.03.2017 the complainant sent reminder to OP Nos. 1 & 2 and on that date the complainant being compelled with the worst experience of service of OP No. 3 asked the OPs to transfer his above Account from that Branch to Hakim Para Branch, Siliguri under same said SBI.
Thereafter the complainant through his Ld. advocate sent one legal notice to the OPs and complainant’s said notice was received by OP and they repudiated the allegations of said sent notice of complainant as baseless. Accordingly this case has been initiated by complainant against the OP-SBI Bank on the allegation of negligence to their duty & service towards complainant done by Bank authority concerned with a prayer for compensation at the tune of RS 50,000/- for mental pain and agony suffered by him as well as claiming cost of litigation.
The OPs have been contested this case & have submitted written version wherein almost all allegations of complainant have been denied. It is the case of the OPs that on 22.02.2017 the complainant visited the State Bank of India, Siliguri Court More Branch for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 49,000/- through a self cheque but the signature in the cheque mismatched with the signature of the Banks record. So Cashier of respective counter repeatedly told the complainant that the signature in the self cheque was different from the signature of Bank records. The Brach manager of the Bank also told the same to the complainant. As regards allegation over deposit of money on 27.02.2017 by the complainant in the said Bank amounting Rs. 10,000/- the same is also denied.
The incident as alleged by complainant over a cheque of Rs. 29,000/- on 02.03.2017, the OPs replied in w/v that complaint had brought a cheque which differed the signature of the
Contd….P/3.
-:3:-
complainant with the record of Bank and in this context it is contended in w/v that it is the utmost duty of Bank official to check the signature in the cheques as the official owes the responsibility so he/she cannot honour the cheque if the signature mismatches and it is stated further that this mismatch in signature does not amount to deficiency in service and ultimately the OPs prayed for dismissal of complainant’s case as brought against them.
It is to be noted that complainant has filed documents in support of his case and submitted his evidence along with affidavit in writing.
On the other hand, the OPs authorized one Sri Shishupal Shah, the then Assistant Manager of the said Branch of SBI who submitted his examination in chief on behalf of Bank OPs along with affidavit to defend the case.
Both the sides, in fine, prior to advancing oral argument submitted respective written notes on argument also.
Accordingly on the basis of these materials on record the following issues are framed for discussion and consideration of the instant case.
ISSUES.
- Is the complainant a consumer as per section 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act. 1986?
- Has there been any deficiency in service/negligence committed as alleged upon the complainant from the part of the OPs?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the compensation or relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS.
Issue Nos. 1 to 3.
All the three(3) issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion & consideration and moreover the issues are interrelated with one another.
For consideration bearing in mind the oral arguments advanced by both parties’ Ld. advocates we have gave the petition of complainant, the written version the evidences filed along with affidavits, the documents as well as the written notes on argument as filed by the parties.
It is noticed from Paragraph-05 of the w/v that OPs categorically denied “that the complainant was never a customer of OP No.3 i.e. State Bank of India, Siliguri Court More Branch” but on the next Paragraph- it is specifically admitted that on 22.02.2017 (as complainant has alleged) the complainant visited the OP No.3, Branch for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 49,000/-
Contd….P/4.
-:4:-
presenting a self cheque but the signature in the cheque mismatched with the signature of the Banks record. So Bank record was there, then why it has been emphatically raised in Paragraph No. 5 of w/v, that complainant was ‘never’ a customer of OP No.3 Bank Branch of SBI.
These two versions of OPs as mentioned above is contradictory with each other.
As regards two contradictory writings in written version, we after going through the original pass book bearing a/c No. 20052097434 can not accept the contention of the OPs that complainant was never a customer/account holder of SBI, Siliguri Court Branch.
Accordingly, it appears that complainant was a customer of that Branch of OP No.3 at the relevant time of incident rightly as per petition of complaint, under such circumstance after that period of incident it appears that complainant shifted his said account to Siliguri Hakimpara Branch of the same State Bank of India within a same town which is here at Siliguri. So there is no doubt that complainant was a consumer with the service of that OP No.3 even while he transferred the account of him to another Branch in same town with the same Bank which is State Bank of India. Thus the complainant has been continuing himself to be a consumer under SBI and thus termed as consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act. 1986.
Here in this case, on going through the written version it is seen that OPs admitted that for mismatch of signature of complainant with the Bank record of his account, the cashier first and then the Branch Manager Op No.3 refused to accept the cheque and at the same time it is found that OPs emphasized in the matter that it is the duty of the Bank official to check the signature in the cheques so produced.
On the other hand it is found from the passbook in question which is filed in original by complainant that on 22.02.2017 an withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 49,000/- and on 18.03.2017 another withdrawal of a sum of RS. 29,000/- were done.
Here, one important factor is required to be considered that OP-Bank on one hand stated everywhere in this case that signature of the complainant in the cheque with the Bank record mismatched but on the other hand it appears that 22.02.2017 on the same date of Production of cheques for withdrawal that amount was withdrawn as original pass-book of complainant shows. The OP-Bank has questioned mismatch of signature. So that cheque of complainant was not accepted and it is admitted in respect of cheque dtd. 22.02.2017 as well as about the cheque of
Contd….P/5.
-:5:-
dtd. 22.03.2017 amounting Rs. 29,000/- in the w/v while it is found that withdrawal of cheque amount of Rs. 49,000/- was encashed on 22.02.2017 but the sum of Rs. 29,000/- was encashed on 18.03.2017.
The point is then that if the cheque of dtd. 22.02.2017 was accepted and encashed on that very date then why question of not honouring the cheque due to mismatch of signature was raised which is admitted by OPs and how that problem of mismatch of signature of the complainant removed by the same bank on that date that is not answered by OPs in this case and here lies the question of deficiency in service against the OPs. These facts and circumstances of the case while considering with documents and material on record proves that complainant became harassed by the OP No.3-Bank of this case in respect of withdrawal of the sum of Rs. 49,000/- by producing his self signed cheque and thus deficiency in service has been proved against the OP-Bank which was done upon the old aged complainant on 22.02.2017.
Accordingly, the issues under consideration are proved against the OPs in favour of the complainant.
In view of such situation it is held by us that the OP-Bank for such deficiency in service by which the complainant became harassed is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant and also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
All the issues are thus disposed of. The instant case is allowed in part.
Hence, it is.
O R D E R E D,
that the instant Consumer Case being No. 53-S-2017 is allowed in part on contest against the OPs.
The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) as compensation to the complainant within 45 day from the date of this order failing which an interest @ 7% per annum shall be carried on that amount till its realization/payment by the complainant.
The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand) to the complainant as against cost of litigation in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties at once free of cost.
