- Mr. Uday Narayan Ghosh,
- Mrs. Shukla Ghosh,
Both resident of
16/212, Hudco Housing Estate,
95, Bidhan Nagar Road,
P.S. Maniktala, Kolkakta-54. _________ Complainants
____Versus____
- Zonal Head, SBI Mutual Fund,
Jeevandeep Building,
No.1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-71,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
- Circle Head, Bengal Circle,
Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Samridhi Bhawan,
1, Strand Road, P.S. Hare St. Kolkata-1. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 29 Dated 15/01/2015.
The case of the complainants, in short, is that complainants are investors in SBI Mutual Fund, a joint venture between State Bank of India and Society General Asset Management. O.p. no.1 is the Zonal Head of SBI Mutual Fund and o.p. no.2 is the Chief General Manager of State Bank of India, Local Head Office in Kolkata and he is the Circle Head of Bengal Circle and overall controller of all departments and units of State Bank of India, which comes under the Bengal Circle jurisdiction.
Being fully convinced, rather misguided, with the publicity of SBI Mutual Fund, the complainants invested their hard earned money in different schemes of SBI Mutual Fund namely
1) SBI One India Fund-Divided Folio No.7975799
2) SBI Magnum Global Fund-Dividend Folio No.7698431
3) SBI Magnum Tax Gain Scheme-Dividend Folio No.8931484
4) SBI Infrastructure Fund 1-Growth Folio No.9771147
5) SBI Infrastructure Fund 1-Growth Folio No.9771139
Complainants for their urgent financial need, deposited aforesaid five certificates of mutual fund for redemption on 6.9.10, duly discharged with relevant papers and bank details for smooth transfer of the redemption proceeds to their respective bank account.
Out of the aforesaid five certificates, the proceeds of following three certificates were directly credited to the bank accounts of the complainants.
1) SBI One India Fund-Divided
2) SBI Magnum Global Fund-Dividend
3) SBI Magnum Tax Gain Scheme-Dividend
That for the remaining two certificates:
1) SBI Infrastructure Fund 1-Growth (in the name of complainant no.1)
2) SBI Infrastructure Fund 1-Growth (in the name of complainant no.2)
The redemption proceeds were not directly credited to the bank account, supplied by the complainants i.e. S/B A/c No.26727, VIP Road Branch, United Bank of India, but instead of two separate banker’s cheques being nos.941088 & 941087 both dt.9.9.10 drawn on Citi Bank, were issued in favour of the complainants and sent by post.
At the time of deposit of the said cheques in the bank account, maintained with United Bank of India, VIP Road Branch vide A/c No.26727, it was detected that in the said cheques, although the A/c number and other particulars were correct, but the name of the bank was mentione4d as ‘Union Bank of India’ instead of and in place of ‘United Bank of India’.
Due to issuance of faulty cheques, the said cheques dt.9.9.10 could not be deposited in the said A/c, maintained with United Bank of India.
In view of the above, by two separate letters both dt.13.9.10, addressed to o.p. no.1, the wrong mentioning of bank’s name and it was requested by the said letters to send the proceeds of two cheques through ECS in the bank account o the complainants, maintained with State Bank of India, Ultadanga Branch, to avoid further complications and delay, as the money was urgently required by the complainants. However, at the time of receiving the aforesaid letters from complainants, concerned employee of the bank informed that as initial redemption amount was sent by cheques, this time also the amount will be sent by cheques, as direct ECS will not be possible.
Complainants further state that though the authority had KYC of the complainants, yet they did not contact with the complainants. Complainant no.1 tried his level best to meet with Chief General Manger, the Circle Head of State Bank of India, to get his problem solved, but all his attempts proved abortive.
Thereafter, by two covering letters, both dt.3.11.10, signed by Authorized Signatory for Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., enclosing two cheques being nos.416572 & 416573 both dt.27.10.10 drawn on Royal Bank of Scotland for Rs.66.41p each, was sent to the complainants as compensation money, based on calculation of interest for delayed payment of three days. Delay, if any, is tried to be meant by using words “Due to Unavoidable Circumstances”. Complainants further state that the sufferings made by them cannot be compensated by paying interest for the delayed period only.
O.p. nos.1 and 2 have been contesting the case by filing their w/v. O.p. no.1 denied the averments made in the present case. O.p. no.1 denied that no error / omission was made by o.p. no.1. O.p. no.1 falsely stated that bank details for two folios namely 9771147 & 9771139 were incorrect, as such, there was no mismatch in the account. O.p. no.1 further stated that as per written request dt.13.9.10 from the complainants for causing delay in making payment of the unpaid two folios, on 27.10.10 two cheques as compensation were sent for delay of three days calculated from 22.9.10 to 24.9.10. O.p. no.1 stated in his objection that after change of bank details of complainants, the redemption amount was credited to the account of complainants on 24.9.10, as such, no delay was caused.
O.p. no.1 denied that the complainant is not entitled to interest @ 15% p.a. on daily rate from 6.9.10 to 8.11.10 as redemption amount was paid on 24.9.10. O.p. no.1 stated that o.p. no.1 did not make any deficiency in service in making payment of the sum of he impugned two certificates.
O.p. no.2 dexterously avoided its liability relating to SBI Mutual Fund, though o.p. no.2 stated that the joint venture has brought about the existence of SBI.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. In view of the above findings we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency being service providers towards the consumer / complainant and we are of the view that such sort of action is highly condemnable and complainant is entitled to get relief in the shape of compensation and litigation cost.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety five thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
