BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP, GUWAHATI- 03

C.C. No-83/2010

Present:

1. Md S.Hussain,AJS     -President
2. Smti A.D.Lahkar        -Member

      Mrs .Flavina Baruah                                                  -Complainant

     W/O- late Chandra Sekhar Baruah

     R/O-Kumarpara,Narayan Nagar

     Near Blue Birds English School, H.No-4,Guwahati-09

     Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam

                           -VS-

1. The State bank of India                                        -Opp.party

Represented by  the General Manager

Zonal Head office-Dispur

Guwahati-781006

      Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam

2. The General Manager,State Bank of India

      Zonal Head Office- Dispur

     Guwahati-781006

     Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam

3. The Assistant General Manager,State Bank of India,

      Guwahati Branch, Guwahati-781001

Appearance:

Ld advocate Mr Mrinal Kr. Boro and Ms Loni Das for the complainant,  

and Ld advocate Mr Akhtar Parvez and Mr Dipanka Gogoi for the Opp.Party No-1 &3.

Date of argument:-26-05-2017

Date of Judgment:-09-06-2017

THIS IS A PROCEEDING U/S-12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

1. The complaint filed by Mrs Flavina Baruah against the State bank of India, Zonal Head office-Dispur Guwahati-781006 and two others was admitted on 19/08/2010 and notices were served  on all the opp. parties and they also filed a  joint W.S. The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit  on 29/09/2011 and she was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel of the opp. parties. The opp. party side filed evidence of Sri Naba Kumar Bora on affidavit on 26/01/2014, and he was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel  of the complainant. Thereafter, Ld. counsel Mr Mrinal Kr Boro and Ms. Loni Das filed written argument for the complainant and Ld. Advocate  Mr Akhtar Parvez and Mr.Dipanka Gogoi filed written argument on behalf of the opp. parties . On 26/05/2017 we have heard oral argument of Ld. counsel Mr Mrinal Kr. Boro for the complainant and Ld. counsel Mr Akhtar Parvez for the opp. party side and today we deliver our judgment, which is as below:
2. The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that her husband late Chandra Sekhar Baruah had opened three fixed (short term  deposit receipts) initially Rs.49,000/- each and same were matured on 10/10/2005 with maturity value of Rs.62,602/- which are i) SD/A-64:731682- B/A No: 0125207088903, ii) SD/A-64:731683-B/A No-01252070889000, iii)  SD/A-64:731684-B/A No-0125207088901 (IN) SD/A-64:731685- B/A No-0125207088902. All these STDR s were renewed on 14/11/2007 w.e.f. 10.10.2005 which were due on  10.10.2008 with  maturity value of Rs.75,962 each; but  that time, the bank changed the bank account numbers into one account vide No-10824182218 and recommended  the same in all STDRs at the time of  renewal of on 14/11/2007. Her husband had suffered from a massive heart stroke in the year of 2003 and died on 11/07/2009 due to  liver cancer( Liver Cirrhosis) and then she claimed the amounts of said STDRs by filling a claim petition before the bank and then the bank handed over four cheques to the tune of Rs.3,54,152.00/- (Savings Account No-01190009776-cheque-934623- Rs.93,917.00/-  ; SD/A-64:731682 A/C No-0125207088903-Cheque No-934624-Rs.84,279.00/-; SD/A-64: 731683 A/C No-012507088900-Cheque No-934625-Rs.84,978.00/-; SD/A-64: 731684 A/C No- 0125207088901-Cheque No-934626-Rs.84,978.00/-)but took time  to pay STDR SD/A-64:731685-A/C No-0125207088902 (old)/ 10824182218(new) rather they informed him that they had lost the said STDR. But that STDR was, later on, found and the bank officials handed over  the said original STDR to him  keeping  a photostat copy  with  them and on 29/07/2010 , at about  3.00 PM, when she  went to meet Assistant General Manager , SBI, Guwahati branch, he misbehaved with her and told her that no payment  can be made  against   that STDR as it is not genuine  one and the bank has no records of the same; and on that day; she found that  the STDRs and bank account numbers which the payments had already  been  made, were tempered by the bank authority . The opp. party are liable for mis -appropriation  of the STDR which is an act of deficiency of service towards him and therefore, they are liable to pay her compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
3. The gist of the pleading of Opp.Party.No -1 to 3 is that Opp.Party.No-3 on so many occasions over phone   requested the complainant to present  original STDR No-731685 for payment  but instead the complainant  lodged the present complaint. During last ten years, Guwahati branch was transformed from manual banking to Bank master system and again from master banking system to Core Banking Solution System and in result some irregularities happened which caused delay in search out STDR No- SD/A-64: 731685. The complainant visited  the branch  on 29/07/2010 and on that day  the receipt  of STDR No-731685 was traced  out, and then  the complainant was asked to come with  original receipt of the said  STDR for payment, but she did not turned up, rather  she filed the present complaint . The bank is still ready to make payment of  said STDR if she present the same to the bank. It is not  fact  that the complainant filed the claims  of STDRs on November,2009. The complainant never requested  them to give her statement if delay in payment of STDR No-731685. It is not  true that Opp. Party No-3 misbehaved   her  on  29/07/2010    while   she   visited   the     bank. As the complainant herself did not produce the original receipt of STDR No-731685 she is responsible for delay of payment of said STDR and therefore , they are not in deficiency of service towards the complainant and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  
4.  We have perused the pleading as well as the evidence of the parties and found that both sides’ admit that  the husband of the complainant  namely Late Chandra Sekhar Baruah had ,on 10-10-2002, opened four fixed deposit accounts in the SBI , Guwahati branch which were – i) SD/A-64:731682- A/C No-0125207088903,          ii) SD/A-64:731683-A/C No-0125207088900, iii)SD/A-64:731684-A/C No-0125207088901, iv) SD/A-64:731685- A/C No-0125207088902 value of each fixed deposit account (STDR) was Rs.49,000/- and those accounts  were first due on 10-10-2005 with maturity value of Rs.62,602/- each ,and after maturity of the said  account the same were  renewed again on 14-11-2007 giving effect from 10-10-2005 which were due  on 10-10-2008 with maturity value  of Rs.75,962/- each, but at the time of renewal , the account numbers of the said  STDRs  were changed but allotted a common account number being  A/C No-10824182218. Both sides are also found to have  admitted  that the owner of the said STDRs –CCB died in the year on 11-07-2009 ; and on his death the present complaint being his wife  submitted claim forms after duly filling up the same,  and the opp. party (SBI) disbursed the maturity amount of three STDRs i.e. i) SD/A-64 :731682-A/C No-0125207088903 by paying Rs.84,279/- vide cheque No-934624, ii) SD/A-64:731683-A/C No-012507088900 paying Rs.84,978/- vide cheque No-934625 and iii) SD/A-64:731684-A/C No-0125207088901 by paying Rs.84,978 vide cheque No-934626 but did not disburse any amount of the STDR No-SD/A -64: 731685 -A/C No-0125207088902.

It is also found that the opp. party side admits that the complainant approached that the disbursement of the STDR No-SD/A-64: 731685 A/C No-0125207088902but they failed to disburse the maturity value of the said STDRbecause the said certificate was not produced before them by her at the time of maturity. It is also found that the opp. parties state in their written statement that during last 10 years immediately before filing written statement their branch was transformed from manual banking to Bank Master System (computerized banking) and again from Bank Master System to Core Banking Solution System which resulted some technical irregularities at that timeof upgradingBank Master System to Core Banking Solution System in respect of STDR No-SD/ A -64: 731685 and thatcaused delay in search of records in respect of such STDR and they assuredthe complainant to informher when theywould be able totrace outthe record of such STDR . This statementof the opp. party clearly showthat the opp. parties admit that in the process oftransforming the manual banking to Bank Master System and again fromBank Master System to Core Banking Solution System in the bank of the opp. parties in the previous 10 years immediately before filing of the written statement , they had lost the certificate as well as recordsof STDR No-SD/A-64:731685, and in result they failed to disburse the maturity valueof the said STDRto the complainant. This admission on thepart of the opp. party infers that due to lack of properdiligenceon part of opp. party bankthe certificate and the record of the STDR No-SD/A-64:731685 has remainedout of trace. The cause ofmisfilingof the saidrecord as stated by the opp. partyis notexcusable onebecauseif theywouldhad beendiligent in the act oftransforming the banking systemfromBank Master System to Core Banking Solution System, the certificate and recordof the said STDR wouldnot have beenout of trace. So we hold that dueto negligence on the part of the opp. parties the certificate and the recordof the said STDRremains out of trace . The opp. partiesare found to haveadmitted that the said STDR was renewedfirstlyon 10-10-2005 along with the paid -up three other STDRs and it was also again renewedon 14-11-2007 along withotherthree paid -up STDRs and it maturedon 10-10-2008 with maturityvalue of Rs. 75,462/-. From evidence, it is found that till today the opp. party has not disbursethe valueof the said STDRalthough it was matured on 10-10-2008 and their only ground for withholding the disbursement is that the certificate and record of the said STDR are out of trace till today. We have found that this groundof withholdingthe paymentof the said STDR isnot the justified groundand therefore they are liable to disburse the maturityvalue of the said STDR. It is also found that the complainant appeared in the office of the Assistant General Manager of the opp. party bank on 29-07-2010alsoto enquireabout the payment of the said STDRbut yet they have not disbursed the maturity value of the said STDR to the complainant. Thereforewe are opinion that the opp. partiesby withholding the disbursementof the value of the said STDR in spite ofthe requestof the complainant, committed deficiency of serviceto the complainant and hence they are liable to pay Rs.75,962/-( the maturity value of the STDRon 10-10-2008 )along withinterest @ 12 % per annum from10-10-2008 tillfull payment.

5.  In this case the complainant raises one allegation that while he visited the office of the Assistant General Manager,SBI, Guwahati branch  on 29-07-2010 at about 3 PM to enquire about  disbursement of the maturity value  of the said STDR ,then the said Assistant General Manager  misbehaved  with her and directed his office staff  not to make payment of the STDR . It is found that complainant side  has  failed to adduce  concrete evidence to prove the said allegation . Therefore we hold that  the said allegation is not factually   true, and therefore question of entitlement of any compensation on the ground of any misbehaviour doesnot arise at all.
6.  It is  factually  true that  on several occasions, the complainant  had to visit  the office of the opp. party  after 07-07-2009 till the date of filing this complaint    ( 19-08-2010) to make enquiry about  disbursement  of the maturity value of the concerned STDR ;and in each occasion she has to return with bare hand and this conduct on the part of the opp. party  is an  act of  harassment  to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opp. parties are  liable to pay atleast Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing  such harassment to the complainant.
7. It is also found that for  no fault of her, the complainant has to prosecute  the opp. parties  before this forum. Therefore we hold that opp. parties are liable to pay  atleast Rs.10,000/-  as cost of the proceeding.
8.  Because of what has been discussed above  the complaint against the opp. parties allowed on contest  and they  are directed to pay the complainant Rs.75,962/- as maturity value  of STDR No-SD/A-64: 73685 as on 10-10-2008 along with  interest @ 12 % per annum from 10-10-2008 till full payment  and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment  to her along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which, all the opp. parties  are jointly and severally liable. The opp. parties  directed to make the payment within 45 days, in default ,other two amounts shall also carry interest at the same rate.      

Given under our hand and seal on this day of 9^th June,2017.

(Md.S.Hussain)

President

DCF,Kamrup

(Smti A. D. Lahkar)

Member

DCF,Kamrup