This complaint U/S 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party 1 (O.P. 1) – The Manager, State Bank of India, Danguazhar Branch,(Branch Code- 7194), P.S. - Jalpaiguri Kotwali, P.O.- Danguazhar,Dist. - Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, 2) Bikash Sarkar, C/O State Bank of India, Danguazhar Branch, (Branch Code- 7194), P.S. - Jalpaiguri Kotwali, P.O.- Danguazhar,Dist. – Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, 3) The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Branch,P.S. - Jalpaiguri Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. - Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, 4) The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region 3, 3rd Floor, At Skystar Building, Sevoke Road, P.O. & P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001, Proforma Opposite Party i) Rituraj Das, S/O- Tushar Kanti Das, R/O- 211 no. Panda Para Colony, 09 no. Gali, P.S. - Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. - Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, ii) The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Post Box No. - 552, Kolkata, Pin Code- 700001. The O.P.No.-2 and the Proforma O.P. No. i) and ii) did not file W.V. and as per Order No. 04, dated 15/06/2022 they declared ex- parte. The O.P. No.1, 3, 4 contested the case by filing their W.V.
The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-
The complainant argued in her plaint that she opened an account being no. 32109642905 under Kiosk Banking vide no.- “KO ID 5GD600003”, KO Name BIKASH SARKAR, KO LOCATION KALIBARI, DHAPGANJ, JALPAIGURI (15027) and the same was directly under the supervision of O.P. No.1 as per to the guidelines, rules, regulations by laws and vigil of the O.P.s as well as the R.B.I. and the complainant started depositing her money into her said bank account in a regular basis. The complainant also added that at the time of opening the said account she had given the phone no. 9932097854 of her son- in- law namely Milan Das of Jalpaiguri for communication and on 30/01/2017 the complainant submitted a communication to the O.P. No.1 for a full statement of account of her said account as the customer service point under S.B.I., Kalibari, Dhapganj, Jalpaiguri remain closed and inoperative but did not get the statement of account. The complainant also argued that after getting a call her son- in- law went to the branch office as her representative and to get a clear idea about the principle and accrued interest requested to provide him the statement of account but did not get the same.
The complainant also argued that on 17/12/2021 she sent a legal correspondence to get the full statement of account of her said account and on 22/12/2021 the O.P. No.1 sent the same directly to her with a period from 28/12/2011 to 01/09/2020 where it was printed that the amount lying to the said account of the complainant was worth Rs. 94/- (Rupees Ninety Four) only. The complainant also added in her plaint that the deposition on money in terms of credit as per statement from 28/12/2011 to 01/09/2020 was Rs. 2, 19, 000/- (Rupees Two Lac. Nineteen Thousand) only with a following break up of- on 12/03/2012- Rs. 17,000/-, on 26/03/2012- Rs. 7,000/-, on 07/04/2012- Rs. 8,500/-, on 23/04/2012- Rs. 5,000/-, on 07/05/2012- Rs. 12,000/-, on 28/06/2012- Rs. 12,000/-, on 04/09/2012- Rs. 20,000/-, on 19/10/2012- Rs. 16,000/-, on 03/11/2012- Rs. 17,000/-, on 19/11/2012- Rs. 2,000/-, on 16/01/2013- Rs. 17,000/-, on 12/02/2013- Rs. 10,000/-, on 22/03/2013- Rs. 25,000/-, on 06/04/2013- Rs. 17,000/-, on 19/07/2013- Rs. 6,000/-, on 06/08/2013- Rs. 4,000/-, on 29/08/2013- Rs. 6,500/-, on 14/09/2013- Rs. 5,000/-, on 22/11/2013- Rs. 5,000/-, on 03/01/2014- Rs. 5,000/- and on 31/03/2014- 2,000/-. The complainant also added in her plaint that her said account also showed the following deposits in support of her credit of Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand) only with a following break up of- on 10/03/2012- Rs. 500/-, on 26/05/2012- Rs. 10,000/-, on 01/06/2012- Rs. 5,000/-, on 04/09/2012- Rs. 9,000/-, on 19/03/2015- Rs. 2,000/-, on 24/12/2015- Rs. 5,000/- and on 24/12/2015- Rs. 500/-. The complainant also added in her plaint that her said account also showed the following withdrawals in support of her credit of Rs. 43, 500/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand and Five Hundred) only as in hand with a following break up of- on 15/03/2012- Rs. 7,000/-, on 17/08/2012- Rs. 6,500/-, on 03/09/2012- Rs. 10,000/-, on 04/01/2013- Rs. 10,000/- and on 22/04/2013- Rs. 10,000/-.
The complainant also argued in her plaint that the cash deposited by her as stated the statement summary provided by the O.P. No.1 was improper, inconsistent, dissymmetrical and full of irregularity and the same was made on purpose by them to get a wrongful gain or profit and finding no other alternatives she filed this consumer case.
The complainant prayed as follows: -
- Admit the petition.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to supply, provide or furnish the statement of account against account no. 32109642905 lying in the name of complainant in a proper evaluated and scrutinized form of statements with proper debit and credit of balance.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to supply, provide or furnish the approval of license or authority given by the O.P.s in favour of “KO ID 5GD600003”, KO Name BIKASH SARKAR, KO LOCATION KALIBARI, DHAPGANJ, JALPAIGURI (15027).
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to supply, provide or furnish the relevant apply letter or permission letter seeking for set up of Kiosk Banking facility by Bikash Sarkar and sanction letter thereof against “KO ID 5GD600003”, KO Name BIKASH SARKAR, KO LOCATION KALIBARI, DHAPGANJ, JALPAIGURI (15027).
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to supply, provide or furnish the whereabouts or present address of Bikash Sarkar running the Kiosk banking centre “KO ID 5GD600003”, KO Name BIKASH SARKAR, KO LOCATION KALIBARI, DHAPGANJ, JALPAIGURI (15027) under the O.P.s.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to supply, provide or furnish necessary papers in regard to the present status of the said Kiosk banking centre “KO ID 5GD600003”, KO Name BIKASH SARKAR, KO LOCATION KALIBARI, DHAPGANJ, JALPAIGURI (15027) under the O.P.s.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay the complainant the amount of Rs 2, 19, 000/- (Rupees Two Lac. Nineteen Thousand) only by the statement of account dated 22/12/2021 given by the O.P. No.1 sailing in the same boat of all O.P.s. for harassment, mental agony, pain and loss suffered by the complainant by the acts of the O.P.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay the complainant the amount of Rs 1, 70, 000/- (Rupees One Lac. Seventeen Thousand) only for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P.s.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s jointly and severally to pay to the complainant of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac.) only for mental pain, pressure, trauma, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the irrational acts of the O.P.s.
- Litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay the complainant, the interest accrued on award amount @12% calculated monthly rates from the date of cause of action till realization.
- Any other relief/ reliefs which your complainant is entitled to.
List of Documents filed by the complainant:
- One photocopies of Deposit Slip, dated 10/03/2012 to 24/12/2015. (07 copies collectively)
- One photocopies of withdrawal, dated 15/03/2012 to 22/04/2013. (05 copies)
- One photocopy of letter dated 30/01/2017.
- One photocopies of legal correspondence dated 17/12/2021. (03 pages)
- One photocopy of postal stamp dated 17/12/2021.
- One photocopy of delivery proof dated 21/12/2021.
- One photocopies of statement of account, dated 22/12/2021. (12 pages)
Regarding this instant case, the Opposite Party 1 (O.P. 1) – The Manager, State Bank of India, Danguazhar Branch, (Branch Code- 7194), P.S. - Jalpaiguri Kotwali, P.O.- Danguazhar, Dist. - Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, 2) Bikash Sarkar, C/O State Bank of India, Danguazhar Branch, (Branch Code- 7194), P.S. - Jalpaiguri Kotwali, P.O.- Danguazhar, Dist. – Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, 3) The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Branch, P.S. - Jalpaiguri Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. - Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, 4) The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region 3, 3rd Floor, At Skystar Building, Sevoke Road, P.O. & P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001, Proforma Opposite Party i) Rituraj Das, S/O- Tushar Kanti Das, R/O- 211 no. Panda Para Colony, 09 no. Gali, P.S. - Kotwali, P.O. & Dist. - Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 735101, ii) The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Post Box No. - 552, Kolkata, Pin Code- 700001. The O.P.No.-2 and the Proforma O.P. No. i) and ii) did not file W.V. and as per Order No. 04, dated 15/06/2022 they declared ex- parte. The O.P. No.1, 3, 4 contested the case by filing their W.V. and as per their W.V. the case is as follows-
The O.P. No.1, 3 and 4 argued in the W.V. that the said KIOSK was running irregular and after getting several complains from the complainant an enquiry conducted against the said KIOSK and as per version of the investigation authority the O.P. No.2 namely Bikash Sarkar committed suicide and thereafter, the O.P. No.1, 3 and 4 collectively conducted an internal enquiry and found that the Late Bikash Sarkar was guilty for embezzlement and he committed suicide under pressure of the customers who deposited the money at the said KIOSK. The O.P. No.1, 3 and 4 also argued that they collectively pressurized on the legal heirs of Late Bikash Sarkar to refund the money which he embezzled during his life time and the mother and brother of Late Bikash Sarkar showed their interest to refund such embezzled amounts but the said refund process is at present going on. The O.P. No.1, 3 and 4 also added in the W.V. that there was no connection with the allegations made by the complainant and by all aspect they cooperated with the complainant.
The O.P. No.1, 3 and 4 prayed as follows: -
To dismiss the present case with compensatory cost and exempt the O.P. Bank from the case and directed the complainant to addendum party (ies), i.e., mother and brother of the O.P. No.2 for ends of the justice.
Points for consideration
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?
3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case?
4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
5) Is the complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by both parties. We are also heard arguments advanced by both the complainant and O.P. No.1, 3 and 4 in full length.
It is very much clear from the evidences that the O.P. No. 1, 3 and 4 is running their business at Jalpaiguri district, having its Regional Office at Sevoke Road, P.O. & P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001. Thus, there is no doubt that this Commission has its territorial jurisdiction to decide this case.
It is also clear from the evidence that the complainant opened an account being no. 32109642905 under Kiosk Banking vide no.- “KO ID 5GD600003”, KO Name BIKASH SARKAR, KO LOCATION KALIBARI, DHAPGANJ, JALPAIGURI (15027) and the same was directly under the supervision of O.P. No.1 as per to the guidelines, rules, regulations by laws and vigil of the O.P.s as well as the R.B.I. and the complainant started depositing her money into her said bank account in a regular basis. So, this Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consume Protection Act, 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case.
Seen and perused the complaint filed by the complainant and W.V. filed by the O.P. No. 1, 3 and 4 as well as documents filed by the complainant and O.P. No. 1, 3 and 4 it is found that the complainant did not produce any proper documentary evidence or any witness in support of her claim. Without any proper documents or any witness based on only merely verbal or written submission does not carry weightage in the case.
In this case, as per the bank statement it is clear that the complainant deposited and withdrew some money in a periodical basis and as per the bank statement the first transaction date was 10/03/2012 and the last transaction date was 25/09/2021 and as per complainant the fraud happened in between the year 2012 and 2016. In the paragraph no. 08 of their W.V. the O.P. No. 1, 3 and 4 admitted the fact that the said KOISK Agent was guilty for embezzlement and committed suicide.
In this instant case, it is very difficult for the Commission to assess the fraud, without any proper proof like Enquiry Report of the bank, Police Report etc. The complainant had ample opportunity to call for this record from the O.P. No.1, 3 and 4 or from the Investigation Agency but in this case the complainant did not do so. Therefore, at the time of judgment some questions have arisen in the mind of this Commission like- (i) whether any fraud was happened or not?, (ii) if happened then to what extent?, (iii) whether the fraud was occurred with the complainant or not?, (iv) if there was any fraud happened to the complainant then why she was not made any complain to the bank in proper time?. Even the complainant did not give any proper clarification that why she lodged the complaint after expiry of six to seven years. The complainant failed to satisfy these points before this Commission and so, at this stage the Commission is not able to give any relief to the complainant at this stage.
In this instant case, this Commission holds that the evidence produced by the complainant is not sufficient to prove his allegations against the O.P. No. 1, 3 and 4 and thus the instant case is dismissed without cost.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Case No. 24/2022 is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 - The Manager, State Bank of India, Danguazhar Branch, (Branch Code- 7194), the O.P. No. 3 - The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Branch and the O.P. No. 4 - The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Dist. – Darjeeling without cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.