R. Nashar,

s/o Raja Mohammed,

21, High School Street,

Pugazhur, Karur. … Complainant

-versus-

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

13-16, Old Bye-pass Road,

Karur Main Branch, Karur. … Opposite Party






ORDER



1. The crux of the complaint is : -

The complainant is working as skilled boiler operator in Tamil Nadu News Print Limited. He is having Savings Bank Account No. 1190045141 with the opposite party with ATM Card facility. The complainant came to know that without prior notice a sum of Rs.4,400/- was debited on 31.3.2006 in his account alleging that he has already withdrawn on 29.10.2005. The complainant states that no such withdrawal was made by him. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount.


Again without notice or prior intimation a sum of Rs.11,000/- was debited in his account on 04.11.2006. This time the opposite party told that he has withdrawn the amount on 05.08.2006. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount. On 05.01.2006 the opposite party has deducted Rs. 3,570/- twice towards personal loan deduction and the same was re-credited on 07.01.2006. On 15.02.2006, the opposite party has credited Rs.43,000/- to his account and subsequently cancelled it as wrong credit.


On 5.8.2006 the opposite party again deducted Rs.3,570/- from his account, in fact the personal loan was already closed in the last week of July 2006. Realizing the error the said amount was credited on 8.8.2006. Again the opposite party has recovered Rs.11,000/- on 4.11.2006 from the complainant account. There are lot of errors like this committed by the opposite party which has caused lot of hardship. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has lodged this complaint for return the amount of Rs.4,400/- and Rs.11,000/- with interest for compensation, costs etc.



2. The crux of the opposite party’s written version is:-

The opposite party contends that all the withdrawals were made by the complainant. The withdrawals of Rs.4,400/- and Rs. 11,000/- were in fact made by the complainant. As there was large un-reconciled entries lying in the books of the opposite party, ATM transaction reconciliation work was undertaken by the opposite party in order to locate and rectify the outstanding entries. The opposite party submits that the complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,000/- from TNPL ATM on 29.10.2005 and another withdrawal of Rs.1000/- through the same ATM just one minute before the said transaction. The said withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- was debited to complainant’s savings bank account, the other withdrawal Rs.5,000/- could not be debited in complainant’s account but parked in bank’s office system suspense account due to the technical fault and satellite link failure.


The opposite party submits that in order to rectify the same a sum of Rs.3,600/- was debited to the complainant’s account on 2.11.2005 to recover maximum account from the available credit balance of Rs.3627.61 in his account. The remaining amount of Rs.1,400/- which alone should have been recovered from him but was wrongly calculated as Rs.4,400/- by inadvertence. Hence, a sum of Rs.3,158/- has been return to the complainant during the pendency of this complaint and endorsement to the said effect has been made. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been committed by the opposite party. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.



3. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?



4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 3 documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit A1 to A3. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit B1 to B5.



5. POINT : The complainant is working as skilled boiler operator in Tamil Nadu News Print Limited. He is having Savings Bank Account No. 1190045141 with the opposite party with ATM Card facility. The complainant came to know that without prior notice a sum of Rs.4,400/- was debited on 31.3.2006 in his account alleging that he has already withdrawn on 29.10.2005. The complainant states that no such withdrawal was made by him. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount.


Again without notice or prior intimation a sum of Rs.11,000/- was debited in his account on 04.11.2006. This time the opposite party told that he has withdrawn the amount on 05.08.2006. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount. The opposite party has strongly contended that all the withdrawals were made by the complainant himself since there was large un-reconciled entries lying in the books of the opposite party, ATM transaction reconciliation work was undertaken by the opposite party in order to locate and rectify the outstanding entries.


In support and to establish the withdrawals made by the complainant, the opposite parties has produced and placed before us ATM Web Page Report and ATM Transaction Journal Log file as Exhibits B1 to B3. With regard to the deduction of Rs.3,570/- twice on 05.01.2006 towards personal loan deduction by the opposite party from the complainant they have admitted that by inadvertence the same has been made and the opposite party has re-credited on 7.1.2006.


On 15.2.2006 the opposite party has credited Rs.43,000/- to his account and subsequently cancelled it as wrong credit. The opposite party has admitted this as clerical error. On 5.8.2006 the opposite party again deducted Rs.3,570/- from complainant’s account, in fact the personal loan account was already closed in the last week of July 2006. Realising the error the said amount was credited on 8.8.2006. The opposite party submits that the complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.5000/- from TNPL ATM on 29/10/2005 and another withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- through the same ATM just one minute before the said transaction.


The said withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- was debited to complainant’s savings bank account the other withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- could not be debited in complainant’s account but parked in bank’s office system suspense account due to the technical fault and satellite link failure. The opposite party submits that in order to rectify the same a sum of Rs.3,600/- was debited to the complainant’s account on 2.11.2005 to recover maximum amount from the available credit balance of Rs.3627.61 in his account. The remaining amount of Rs.1,400/- which alone should have been recovered from him but was wrongly calculated as Rs.4,400/- by inadvertence.


Hence, a sum of Rs.3,158/- has been return to the complainant during the pendency of this complaint and endorsement to the said effect has been made and recorded by this Forum. There are lot of errors like these committed by the opposite party and the same has been admitted by the opposite party too. With regard to withdrawal of Rs.4,400/- and Rs.11,000/- the opposite party contends that the same has been withdrawn by the complainant and this can be evidenced from the Exhibits placed before us by the opposite party. The perusal of the exhibits clearly establishes the withdrawal was made from the complainant’s ATM card.


The ATM card is in safe custody of the complainant and as such there is no question of withdrawal taking place without his knowledge or consent. In this regard, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that he has not at all withdrawn the said amount. As such no order for crediting the amount to the complainant’s account is made by this Forum. However, this Forum is of the view that the opposite party ought to have reconcile their statements immediately without any delay and they are not supposed to debit the account of the customers months after the transactions takes place, which would definitely cause hardship to the complainant.


In the present complaint before us the debits to the complainant’s account were made after two to three months after the alleged transaction has taken place. The complainant, in case, if he has given a cheque to third party on the belief that he is having sufficient balance in his account and if the opposite party on one fine morning debits the complainant’s account, the same would result in dishonour of the cheque issued by the complainant and he would be put in an embarrassing position. The opposite parties are not supposed to make debits according to their whims and fancies which may embarrass and hardship to the complainant.


With regard to the deficiency in service it can be seen that a wrong credit has been made to the complainant’s account for Rs.43,000/-, loan installment for personal loan was debited twice, installment for loan has been deducted after closure of the personal loan account, wrong debit was made in the complainant’s account and amount reimbursed during the pendency of the proceedings etc., clearly establishes the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Such acts on the part of the opposite party would have definitely resulted in mental agony to the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold the act of the opposite party as deficiency in service. Point is answered accordingly.

1) Subhra Sankha Mukherjee,

334, N.S.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700047. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) S.B.I., Bhowanipur Branch,

Kolkata-700025. ---------- Opposite Party











The complain ant, Mr. Subhra Sankha Mukherjee by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay Rs.3000/- in respect of the demand draft in question and an amount ofRs.15000/- as compensation along with other order or orders as the forum deem fit and proper.

The petitioner deposited one demand draft dt.22.4.05 for clearance of Rs.3000/- bearing no.D00001196 on 6.5.05 with his banker SBI, Bhowanipur Branch, which was issued by National West Minister Bank on the drawee bank ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai Branch. To his utter surprise, the petitioner after one month, came to knew that the amount had not yet been credited to his account of SBI, Bhowanipur Branch, o.p. no.1. On query, he did not get any satisfactory answer from o.p. no.1.


Thereafter to know the status of the draft in question he made several visits to o.p. no.1 and wrote several letters to that effect, namely on 30.9.05 and 2411.05 and 2.5.07 etc. O.p. no.1 did not reply to those letters and on 14.1.06 the petitioner was informed that the amount of Rs.3000/- of the draft in question had been debited to the account of the drawer of draft. But on repeated persuasion to o.p. no.1 the petitioner could not get the amount credited to his account by o.p. no.1 till 2.5.07. The petitioner further started that although he was not a consumer of ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch, o.p. no.2, they failed to perform their duty towards the consumer of o.p. no.1.

And finding no other way the petitioner filed this case on 24.7.07. Notices were duly served upon o.p. nos.1 and 2. They appeared but o.p. no.1 never filed their w/v controverting the allegations made by the petitioner against them. But on 5.6.09, ld. Lawyer for the complainant informed the forum that o.p. no.1 had credited an amount of Rs.3410/- to his account (Rs.3000/- as principal + Rs.410/- as interest). O.p. no.2 filed their w/v and contended interalia that the petitioner is not a consumer of o.p. no.2, no direct transaction took place between the petitioner and o.p. no.2. And there is no evidence adduced by the o.p. no.1 that the draft in question was deposited by the o.p. no.1 with o.p. no.2 for clearance.


The petitioner filed the copy of one letter on 6.7.09 sent by the o.p. no.1 to the President, CDF, Kolkata, Unit-1 stating therein that on 12.5.05 the draft in question was sent by o.p. no.1 to o.p. no.2 for clearance, and o.p. no.1 had already credited the amount of Rs.3410/- to the account of the petitioner. And through this letter o.p. no.1 also requested the petitioner to withdraw the instant case. On this point, the petitioner had prayed for an award of compensation for his mental agony, harassment caused due to the deficiency of service by the o.ps.

Decision with reasons :

The petitioner is the consumer of o.p. no.1 directly and he is the beneficiary of the ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch since the draft was drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai in his favour. Accordingly, he is a consumer of o.p. no.2, too after the lapse of the two years, the o.p. no.1had credited the account of the petitioner with the amount of the draft in question along with the interest informing the date of sending the draft in question for clearance to o.p. no.2.


And we have perused the letter of o.p. no.1 sent to o.p. no.2 on 4.10.05 enquiry about their S.C. no.05/293 dt.12.5.05 for Rs.3000/- regarding the clearance of the draft in question. And from the letter it is also evident that o.p. no.1 had written to the o.p. no.2 prior to 4.10.05 i.e. their PBD/SC/146 dt.8.8.05. But both the letters i.e. 4.10.05 and 8.8.05 of o.p. no.1 remained unreplied.


The petitioner also wrote to o,.p. no.2 to that effect. But o.p. no.2 remained silent without answering any of the letters of either o.p. no.1 or the petitioner. The consumers repose their confidence with the banks, who are always expected to be more careful in dealing with financial matters of their customers. Accordingly, both the o.ps. are found deficient in providing service to the petitioner.

Although the o.p. no.1 had credited the amount of the draft in question, but they did it after a long time i.e. after two long years. Hence, we hold that both the o.ps. were negligent in discharging their services towards the petitioner. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit and contest against o.p. no.2 and ex parte against o.p. no.1.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the o.ps. are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only jointly/individually along with cost of litigation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, making a grand total of 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only positively within thirty days from the date of passing the judgment, failing which it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

Great Topic and great news on Sbi bank

1. K. Suneetha,
2. K. Naga Raju,
3. K. Phanendra,

2 and 3 are being minors rep.by

their mother and natural guardian

Kothamasu Suneetha (1st Complainant)

W/o. Late Srinivasa Rao,

all R/o. 2/3 Yadava Street,

Old Guntur, Guntur. … Complainant

And



State Bank of India,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Kakumanu Village and Mandal,

Guntur District. … Opposite Party







O R D E R




This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainants seeking directions from the opposite party for return of gold ornaments weighing 188.1 gms pledged by late Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and costs of litigation.

The case of the complainants in brief is that the husband of the 1st complainant namely Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao during his lifetime had availed agricultural gold loan vide A/c.No.34/1237 to a tune of Rs.90,000/- by pledging the gold ornaments of the 1st complainant weighing about 188.1 gms from SBI., Kakumanu branch (opposite party herein). Late Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao died in an accident intestate leaving behind the complainants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs.


After his death the 1st complainant enquired about the pledging of gold ornaments in the bank of opposite party but they failed to furnish necessary information thereafter she got issued a legal notice on 12-4-07 and also personally visited the bank after submission of necessary documents i.e., family members certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kakumanu (M), Guntur district, copy of FIR and post mortem report.


The 1st complainant also came to know that her late husband has repaid the said gold loan to the maximum extent. In the reply notice dated 05-05-07, the bank has informed about availment of gold loan of Rs.90,000/- and the personal loan of Rs.25,000/- but, not revealed any information about payment of instalments by the deceased. The 1st complainant also came to know that her parents in law influencing the Manager of the Bank for not disclosing any information and for returning gold ornaments.

The Government of India recently declared interest remission of agricultural gold loan and 1st complainant also enquired about the same. But there was no proper response from the opposite party. Therefore, she approached this Forum for necessary relief. She is also ready to discharge the balance debt amount if any. The complainants being the legal heirs of late Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao and as pledged gold ornaments belongs to 1st complainant, they have right to claim for the same. Recently the mother of late Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao also died, as such there are no other legal heirs than the complainants herein. Hence, the complaint.

The opposite party has filed its version in the following manner. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The averments made in the complaint are hereby denied and the complainants are called upon to prove them strictly. It is submitted that one Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao had availed personal loan of RS.25,000/- on 08-09-06 and also an agricultural gold loan of Rs.90,000/- on 22-09-06 by pledging gold ornaments. Later he died in a road accident without discharging the said loan amounts.

Further, it is submitted that waiver of agricultural debts scheme was declared by the Central Government is applicable to the agricultural gold loan availed by the deceased Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao only to some extent. As he possessed more than 5 acres of land, he is eligible to get benefit of Rs.20,000/- towards waiver of agricultural debt, provided the entire balance due is to be discharged by end of June, 2009 as per the schedule mentioned in the waiver scheme. The said fact is also informed to the 1st complainant.

While it is so, the complainants who are the legal heirs of the deceased are insisting the opposite party bank for return of gold ornaments without choosing to discharge the gold loan incurred by the deceased Kothamasu Srinivasa Rao. As per the provision of Hindu Succession Act, the mother of the deceased also is legal heir of her deceased son. Even as per the averments made in the complaint the mother of the deceased died recently, she died leaving behind her husband and two daughters as her legal heirs. Suppressing these facts the complainants have resorted to file this complaint.

It is submitted that the opposite party has come to know that there are disputes in between the parents of the deceased and the complainants and they have filed cases against each other. In view of disputes in between them it is not permissible for this opposite party to return gold ornaments to the complainants even after discharge of the debts in absence of succession certificate.

Lastly, it is submitted that interest remission is not applicable to the gold loan incurred by the deceased and the same was also informed to the complainants in their reply notice. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

The 1st complainant K. Suneetha has filed her affidavit while explaining the documents on record. Exs.A-1 to A-11 are marked in support of her claim. She has also filed additional affidavit on 27-08-09 stating that the gold ornaments pledged by her husband are her absolute sridhana property which had purchased on 2-4-05 vide cash bill No.2002 to the extent of 206.550 gms for Rs.130,645/- she had also enclosed copy of the bill which is marked as Ex.A-11.

The opposite party through its Manager P. Venkatesh filed its affidavit in respect of their claim while marking documents vide Exs.B-1 and B-2. Ex.B-1 is the Certified copy of the Statement of Account No.01660/115035 (personal loan) of the deceased K. Srinivasa Rao. Ex.B-2 is the Certified copy of the Statement of Account No.01571/025050 (Agricultural gold loan) of the deceased K. Srinivasa Rao.



Now the points for determination are that,

1. Whether the opposite party bank has committed deficiency of service in not returning the gold ornaments pledged by late K. Srinivasa Rao while availing agricultural gold loan during his lifetime?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for return of gold ornaments from the opposite party bank in the circumstances explained by them?

3. To what relief?



POINTS 1 TO 3:- The dispute is not much in between the parties except for return of gold ornaments pledged by late husband of the 1st complainant namely K. Srinivasa Rao. There is no dispute that during his lifetime late K. Srinivasa Rao had availed both personal loan of Rs.25,000/- vide Ex.B-1 and agricultural gold loan of Rs.90,000/- vide Ex.B-2.


It appears that due to unfortunate death of the deceased K. Srinivasa Rao in a road accident in his early age, some misunderstandings arose in between the 1st complainant and her parents in law. They are residents of Kakumanu village. The 1st complainant as seen from the record vide Ex.A-3 the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kakumanu is aged about 25 years and having two sons aged about 8 and 7 years respectively. After the death of her husband the 1st complainant shifted her family from her in law’s house Kakumanu to Guntur.


This fact is averred in the complaint itself. The copy of FIR Ex.A-4, copy of Post mortem report vide Ex.A-5, Death certificate vide Ex.A-2 certainly reveals the death of the deceased K. Srinivasa Rao in a road accident. Soon thereafter, she got issued a legal notice to her in laws and other relatives including the Branch Manager of State Bank of India at Kakumanu, Jillellamudi and LIC of India, branch office at Bapatla which is evident from Ex.A-6 she has alleged that her parents have gifted one acre of land towards pasupukumkuma at the time of marriage which is situated in lingamguntlapalem and that her father in law wanted to sell away the same to purchase a house in Kakumanu village.


She has also alleged the indifference attitude of her parents in law and other relatives towards them after the death of the deceased. Further alleged that the cash deposits held in the above banks belongs to joint family and her husband is also having share in them. She made an allegation against the Branch Managers of the banks that they are under influence of her parents in law as such they are not co-operating in taking back of gold ornaments. A reply notice dated 5-5-07 was got issued by the opposite party bank wahich is on record Ex.A-7.


In this reply it is mentioned that late Srinivasa Rao had availed two loans as referred in their version and that waiver benefit is not applicable to the gold loan amount availed by Srinivasa Rao. The bank also addressed a separate letter dated 14-2-09 (after filing this case) in the name of 1st complainant and her father in law namely K. Rama Rao for clearance of the gold loan account by availing eligibility of 25% of remission otherwise it would opt for auction of the ornaments. The 1st complainant protested for sending notice by the bank to her father in law as the pledged ornaments absolutely belongs to her. This is evident from Ex.A-9 which is dated 19-02-09.

While things stood thus, during pendency of proceedings in the above case, it is represented by the learned counsel for the complainant that the 1st complainant had expressed her readiness to discharge the balance gold loan amount, but on the influence of her father in law the Manger of the Bank is not co-operating and insisting upon the signature of father in law and further the bank is contemplating to hold an auction of the gold ornaments. This representation was made on 5-5-09.


At that juncture the Forum ordered not to hold auction of the gold ornaments and receive the debt amount from the complainants if they come forward. However, on making similar representations on 26-6-09 the learned advocate for the opposite party has expressed no objection for receipt of debt amount while giving remission in the loan as per the scheme, if they come forward to pay the amount before the end of June.


But with regard to return of gold ornaments to the complainants he insisted upon production of succession certificate. Accordingly it appears the complainants have paid the balance debt amount in the bank while availing the remission. This is also admitted fact. Therefore, now the matter confines to the question whether succession certificate is necessary for return of gold ornaments to the 1st complainant.

The complainants have obtained legal heir certificate on 7-6-07 from Tahsildar vide Ex.A-3 showing the complainants as legal heirs. The certificate is given after making due enquiry by the revenue officials. It is also stated therein that the 1st complainant is the proper person to receive the pledged articles and also FD amounts lying in various banks. Of course, a note is made thereon that this certificate will not serve as succession certificate.


There is no dispute that the mother of the deceased who is one of the class-I heir as per the Succession Act also died before filing the complaint. The bank alleges that old lady survived by other legal heirs who are not brought on record but there is no documentary proof in that regard. Even otherwise that is different issue altogether which would fall within the purview of Civil Court.


The 1st complainant claiming absolute right over the pledged ornaments as her sridhana property and also produced sale voucher dated 02-04-05 vide Ex.A-11. She had purchased gold ornaments from Swaraj jewellery, Guntur. The details of ornaments purchased and their weight is also mentioned therein with price amount. There is absolutely no protest in whatsoever in nature from father in law of the 1st complainant either by way of reply notice or personal appearance in these proceedings before the Forum.


Thus the evidence on record and circumstances of the case do show prima facie that the pledged ornaments in the bank belongs to 1st complainant. It is also not in dispute that the balance debt amount under this account has been discharged by her. The learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the bank has given notice to the 1st complainant demanding for payment of debt amount and on receipt of the same onceagain directing them to produce succession certificate not satisfying with the certificate on record issued by Tahsildar, and this amounts to harassment but nothing else and also it involves lot of expenditure, which they cannot afford to do so.

He also tried to impress upon the Forum that the complainants are not claiming the debt amounts of the deceased due by the 3rd parties or securities and debentures as such succession certificate is not required that too in a case of this nature where the debt amount due by her husband has been discharged and that she has every right to claim her own property.

The learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon a decision reported in 2006 (1) ALD 382 K. Srinivasu vs. A.P. Co-operative Bank Limited, Hyderabad. In that case the complainants claimed release of FDR’s amounts pertaining to the deceased who made deposits, the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased. They have produced legal heir certificate issued by MRO., the bank has insisted upon succession certificate.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed in para 6 as follows,

“It is for the respondent bank to take a decision whether to act on the legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, or to insist upon production of a Succession certificate or to take any another form of security from the petitioner for releasing the amounts covered by the fixed deposits of his parents in his favour, but this Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the respondent, for its own safety.


As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent since the petitioner did not produce any document to show that respondent insisted on his production of a succession certificate, petitioner is at liberty to make an application to the respondent for payment of the amount covered under the fixed deposit made by his parents to him basing on the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar. The respondent can consider that application of the petitioner and communicate its decision to the petitioner, but no relief can be granted by this Court to the petitioner on this petition”.

Kinnera Divija,

W/o. K.Nagaraju,

Hindu, aged 42 years,

Sudesh Acquatech,

20-2-674, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta,

Tirupati. … Complainant



And



1. Sky Pack System,

by its authorized signatory,

B-7, Muthuswamy Street,

Vangaram Road,

Athipet,

Ambathur,

Chennai – 600 058.



2. State Bank of India,

By its Branch Manager,

Korlagunta,

Tirupati. … Opposite parties.




ORDER



This complaint is filed under Sections- 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- with bank rate of interest from 23.07.2007, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and hardship and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant, who is an unemployed women in order to have source of livelihood, she wanted to install stainless steel plant and lab equipments as per ISI standard. The complainant in that connection obtained quotation from opposite party No.1 for Rs.9,00,000/- on 20.02.2007 and approached opposite party No.2 for financial assistance. The complainant, who is having S.B.A/c.No.30210049932 with opposite party No.2 raised loan for Rs.9,00,000/- on 23.07.2007.


The opposite party No.2 forwarded draft for Rs.9,00,000/- on behalf of complainant to opposite party No.1 towards full payment of R.O.system along with accessories and requested to dispatch the machinery to the complainant within 7 days. The opposite party No.1 acknowledged the receipt of the demand draft. The opposite party No.1, having received full consideration towards cost of the machinery failed to dispatch its obligation in supplying the unit to the complainant, which amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. Frustrated by their inaction, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party No.1 on 21.04.2008 calling upon to dispatch the machinery or in the alternative to refund the amount.


The opposite party No.1 though received the notice on 24.04.2008 neither supplied the machinery nor refunded the amount. As a last resort the complainant sent a telegram to opposite party No.1 on 25.05.2009 to expedite the dispatch of the machinery. This also became a futile exercise. The complainant suffered much at the hands of opposite party No.1. The complainant has not only put in loss of earnings but burdened to pay the loan amount with interest at 12% per annum to opposite party No.2. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite parties, having received the notice, remained exparte.

4. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed her affidavit and got marked Exs. A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is copy of letter dt:23.07.2007 addressed by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 enclosing demand draft for Rs.9,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dt:21.04.2008 got issued by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Ex.A3 is copy of letter dt:18.06.2008 addressed by the counsel for complainant to the Sub Post Master, West Post Office, Tirupati. Ex.A4 is letter dt:22.07.2008 of Superintendent, Post Office, Tirupati, to the advocate for complainant in reply to Ex.A3 letter. Ex.A5 is copy of telegram dt:25.05.2009 issued by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Ex.A6 is computer generated statement of loan account of complainant issued by opposite party No.2.

5. On behalf of the complainant written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel for complainant.

6. On the basis of pleadings, the points that arise for determination are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 towards the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

3. To what result?

7. Point No.1:- The averments of the complaint and Ex.A1 establish that the complainant in order to install stainless steel plant by purchasing the same from opposite party No.1 obtained loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 sent demand draft No.842042 dt:23.07.2007 for Rs.9,00,000/- to opposite party No.1 towards the purchase price of R.O.system and other accessories, and opposite party No.1 received the demand draft on 26.07.2007. As the opposite party No.1 failed to send the machinery for nearly 9 months even after receipt of full payment, the complainant got issued Ex.A2 legal notice dt:21.04.2008 and the opposite party No.1 received the same on 24.04.2008 as seen from Exs.A3 and A4. The complainant issued telegram to opposite party No.1 on 25.05.2009 requesting to expedite dispatching of machinery. As there is no response from opposite party No.1, the complainant filed the complaint on 26.06.2009.

8. Ex.A1 shows that the opposite party No.1 issued quotation dt:20.02.2007 agreeing to supply R.O. systems and lab materials to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 received demand draft for Rs.9,00,000/- more than two years back. The act of opposite party No.1 in not supplying the R.O.system and other accessories even after receipt of cost price amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the complainant.

9.Point No.2:- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest from 26.07.2007. The averment in the complaint and Ex.A6 shows that the complainant is repaying the loan with interest at 12% per annum to opposite party No.2. The complainant is, therefore, entitled for interest at 12% on the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from 26.07.2007, the date on which the opposite party No.1 received the demand draft. Having agreed to supply R.O.system and other accessories, and received the full consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-, the opposite party No.1 failed to supply the machinery for more than two years. The opposite party No.1 caused harassment and hardship to the complainant by not supplying the machinery for more than two years even after receipt of full payment.


The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. In our view, it is a fit case to award separate amount towards compensation as the interest awarded on the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- which is payable by the complainant to the opposite party No.2. In our view, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses as claimed. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 26.07.2007, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. This point is accordingly answered.

R. Nashar,

s/o Raja Mohammed,

21, High School Street,

Pugazhur, Karur. … Complainant

-versus-

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

13-16, Old Bye-pass Road,

Karur Main Branch, Karur. … Opposite Party





ORDER



1. The crux of the complaint is : -

The complainant is working as skilled boiler operator in Tamil Nadu News Print Limited. He is having Savings Bank Account No. 1190045141 with the opposite party with ATM Card facility. The complainant came to know that without prior notice a sum of Rs.4,400/- was debited on 31.3.2006 in his account alleging that he has already withdrawn on 29.10.2005.


The complainant states that no such withdrawal was made by him. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount. Again without notice or prior intimation a sum of Rs.11,000/- was debited in his account on 04.11.2006. This time the opposite party told that he has withdrawn the amount on 05.08.2006. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount. On 05.01.2006 the opposite party has deducted Rs. 3,570/- twice towards personal loan deduction and the same was re-credited on 07.01.2006.


On 15.02.2006, the opposite party has credited Rs.43,000/- to his account and subsequently cancelled it as wrong credit. On 5.8.2006 the opposite party again deducted Rs.3,570/- from his account, in fact the personal loan was already closed in the last week of July 2006. Realizing the error the said amount was credited on 8.8.2006. Again the opposite party has recovered Rs.11,000/- on 4.11.2006 from the complainant account. There are lot of errors like this committed by the opposite party which has caused lot of hardship. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has lodged this complaint for return the amount of Rs.4,400/- and Rs.11,000/- with interest for compensation, costs etc.



2. The crux of the opposite party’s written version is:-

The opposite party contends that all the withdrawals were made by the complainant. The withdrawals of Rs.4,400/- and Rs. 11,000/- were in fact made by the complainant. As there was large un-reconciled entries lying in the books of the opposite party, ATM transaction reconciliation work was undertaken by the opposite party in order to locate and rectify the outstanding entries.


The opposite party submits that the complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,000/- from TNPL ATM on 29.10.2005 and another withdrawal of Rs.1000/- through the same ATM just one minute before the said transaction. The said withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- was debited to complainant’s savings bank account, the other withdrawal Rs.5,000/- could not be debited in complainant’s account but parked in bank’s office system suspense account due to the technical fault and satellite link failure.


The opposite party submits that in order to rectify the same a sum of Rs.3,600/- was debited to the complainant’s account on 2.11.2005 to recover maximum account from the available credit balance of Rs.3627.61 in his account. The remaining amount of Rs.1,400/- which alone should have been recovered from him but was wrongly calculated as Rs.4,400/- by inadvertence. Hence, a sum of Rs.3,158/- has been return to the complainant during the pendency of this complaint and endorsement to the said effect has been made. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been committed by the opposite party. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.



3. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled for?



4. The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 3 documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit A1 to A3. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit B1 to B5.



5. POINT : The complainant is working as skilled boiler operator in Tamil Nadu News Print Limited. He is having Savings Bank Account No. 1190045141 with the opposite party with ATM Card facility. The complainant came to know that without prior notice a sum of Rs.4,400/- was debited on 31.3.2006 in his account alleging that he has already withdrawn on 29.10.2005. The complainant states that no such withdrawal was made by him. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount.


Again without notice or prior intimation a sum of Rs.11,000/- was debited in his account on 04.11.2006. This time the opposite party told that he has withdrawn the amount on 05.08.2006. The complainant took up the matter with the opposite party who has not so far re-credited the amount. The opposite party has strongly contended that all the withdrawals were made by the complainant himself since there was large un-reconciled entries lying in the books of the opposite party, ATM transaction reconciliation work was undertaken by the opposite party in order to locate and rectify the outstanding entries.


In support and to establish the withdrawals made by the complainant, the opposite parties has produced and placed before us ATM Web Page Report and ATM Transaction Journal Log file as Exhibits B1 to B3. With regard to the deduction of Rs.3,570/- twice on 05.01.2006 towards personal loan deduction by the opposite party from the complainant they have admitted that by inadvertence the same has been made and the opposite party has re-credited on 7.1.2006.


On 15.2.2006 the opposite party has credited Rs.43,000/- to his account and subsequently cancelled it as wrong credit. The opposite party has admitted this as clerical error. On 5.8.2006 the opposite party again deducted Rs.3,570/- from complainant’s account, in fact the personal loan account was already closed in the last week of July 2006. Realising the error the said amount was credited on 8.8.2006. The opposite party submits that the complainant has withdrawn a sum of Rs.5000/- from TNPL ATM on 29/10/2005 and another withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- through the same ATM just one minute before the said transaction.


The said withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- was debited to complainant’s savings bank account the other withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- could not be debited in complainant’s account but parked in bank’s office system suspense account due to the technical fault and satellite link failure. The opposite party submits that in order to rectify the same a sum of Rs.3,600/- was debited to the complainant’s account on 2.11.2005 to recover maximum amount from the available credit balance of Rs.3627.61 in his account. The remaining amount of Rs.1,400/- which alone should have been recovered from him but was wrongly calculated as Rs.4,400/- by inadvertence.


Hence, a sum of Rs.3,158/- has been return to the complainant during the pendency of this complaint and endorsement to the said effect has been made and recorded by this Forum. There are lot of errors like these committed by the opposite party and the same has been admitted by the opposite party too. With regard to withdrawal of Rs.4,400/- and Rs.11,000/- the opposite party contends that the same has been withdrawn by the complainant and this can be evidenced from the Exhibits placed before us by the opposite party. The perusal of the exhibits clearly establishes the withdrawal was made from the complainant’s ATM card.


The ATM card is in safe custody of the complainant and as such there is no question of withdrawal taking place without his knowledge or consent. In this regard, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that he has not at all withdrawn the said amount. As such no order for crediting the amount to the complainant’s account is made by this Forum. However, this Forum is of the view that the opposite party ought to have reconcile their statements immediately without any delay and they are not supposed to debit the account of the customers months after the transactions takes place, which would definitely cause hardship to the complainant.


In the present complaint before us the debits to the complainant’s account were made after two to three months after the alleged transaction has taken place. The complainant, in case, if he has given a cheque to third party on the belief that he is having sufficient balance in his account and if the opposite party on one fine morning debits the complainant’s account, the same would result in dishonour of the cheque issued by the complainant and he would be put in an embarrassing position. The opposite parties are not supposed to make debits according to their whims and fancies which may embarrass and hardship to the complainant.


With regard to the deficiency in service it can be seen that a wrong credit has been made to the complainant’s account for Rs.43,000/-, loan installment for personal loan was debited twice, installment for loan has been deducted after closure of the personal loan account, wrong debit was made in the complainant’s account and amount reimbursed during the pendency of the proceedings etc., clearly establishes the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Such acts on the part of the opposite party would have definitely resulted in mental agony to the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold the act of the opposite party as deficiency in service. Point is answered accordingly.

1) Subhra Sankha Mukherjee,

334, N.S.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700047. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) S.B.I., Bhowanipur Branch,

Kolkata-700025. ---------- Opposite Party







The complain ant, Mr. Subhra Sankha Mukherjee by filing a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay Rs.3000/- in respect of the demand draft in question and an amount ofRs.15000/- as compensation along with other order or orders as the forum deem fit and proper.

The petitioner deposited one demand draft dt.22.4.05 for clearance of Rs.3000/- bearing no.D00001196 on 6.5.05 with his banker SBI, Bhowanipur Branch, which was issued by National West Minister Bank on the drawee bank ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai Branch. To his utter surprise, the petitioner after one month, came to knew that the amount had not yet been credited to his account of SBI, Bhowanipur Branch, o.p. no.1. On query, he did not get any satisfactory answer from o.p. no.1. Thereafter to know the status of the draft in question he made several visits to o.p. no.1 and wrote several letters to that effect, namely on 30.9.05 and 2411.05 and 2.5.07 etc.


O.p. no.1 did not reply to those letters and on 14.1.06 the petitioner was informed that the amount of Rs.3000/- of the draft in question had been debited to the account of the drawer of draft. But on repeated persuasion to o.p. no.1 the petitioner could not get the amount credited to his account by o.p. no.1 till 2.5.07. The petitioner further started that although he was not a consumer of ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch, o.p. no.2, they failed to perform their duty towards the consumer of o.p. no.1.

And finding no other way the petitioner filed this case on 24.7.07. Notices were duly served upon o.p. nos.1 and 2. They appeared but o.p. no.1 never filed their w/v controverting the allegations made by the petitioner against them. But on 5.6.09, ld. Lawyer for the complainant informed the forum that o.p. no.1 had credited an amount of Rs.3410/- to his account (Rs.3000/- as principal + Rs.410/- as interest).


O.p. no.2 filed their w/v and contended interalia that the petitioner is not a consumer of o.p. no.2, no direct transaction took place between the petitioner and o.p. no.2. And there is no evidence adduced by the o.p. no.1 that the draft in question was deposited by the o.p. no.1 with o.p. no.2 for clearance.


The petitioner filed the copy of one letter on 6.7.09 sent by the o.p. no.1 to the President, CDF, Kolkata, Unit-1 stating therein that on 12.5.05 the draft in question was sent by o.p. no.1 to o.p. no.2 for clearance, and o.p. no.1 had already credited the amount of Rs.3410/- to the account of the petitioner. And through this letter o.p. no.1 also requested the petitioner to withdraw the instant case. On this point, the petitioner had prayed for an award of compensation for his mental agony, harassment caused due to the deficiency of service by the o.ps.

Decision with reasons :

The petitioner is the consumer of o.p. no.1 directly and he is the beneficiary of the ICICI Bank, Mumbai Branch since the draft was drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai in his favour. Accordingly, he is a consumer of o.p. no.2, too after the lapse of the two years, the o.p. no.1had credited the account of the petitioner with the amount of the draft in question along with the interest informing the date of sending the draft in question for clearance to o.p. no.2.


And we have perused the letter of o.p. no.1 sent to o.p. no.2 on 4.10.05 enquiry about their S.C. no.05/293 dt.12.5.05 for Rs.3000/- regarding the clearance of the draft in question. And from the letter it is also evident that o.p. no.1 had written to the o.p. no.2 prior to 4.10.05 i.e. their PBD/SC/146 dt.8.8.05. But both the letters i.e. 4.10.05 and 8.8.05 of o.p. no.1 remained unreplied.


The petitioner also wrote to o,.p. no.2 to that effect. But o.p. no.2 remained silent without answering any of the letters of either o.p. no.1 or the petitioner. The consumers repose their confidence with the banks, who are always expected to be more careful in dealing with financial matters of their customers. Accordingly, both the o.ps. are found deficient in providing service to the petitioner.

Although the o.p. no.1 had credited the amount of the draft in question, but they did it after a long time i.e. after two long years. Hence, we hold that both the o.ps. were negligent in discharging their services towards the petitioner. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit and contest against o.p. no.2 and ex parte against o.p. no.1.

1. Mrs. Nirmla Devi Wd/O late Shri Jagdish Chand,

S/O Shri Mam Raj, Resident of Village Kiyarda,

Tehsi Panta Sahib, District Sirmour,H.P.



2. Shri Shivam minor S/O late Shri Jagdish Chand,

through Smt. Nirmla Devi, being the mother and natural guardian as his next friend.



… Complainants.

Versus





1. The State Bank of India, Branch Majra,

Tehsi Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

Through its Branch Manager.



2. SBI life Insurance Company Ltd.

Through Branch Manager, Navi Mumbai-400614.



…Opposite Parties.








O R D E R:

This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is averred that the OP No.1-Bank had floated a scheme for insurance for housing loan borrowers, hence, late husband of the complainant No.1 and father of the complainant No.2, had applied for a housing loan from the OP No.1, was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2.50 lacs for constructing his house. It is further averred that the deceased had also availed life super surksha group life insurance scheme, which was available to borrowers of housing loan only and was bearing policy No.83001000203 and paid a premium of Rs.6,378/-.


It is further averred that after the demise of the deceased, as per the scheme, availed by the deceased, the balance instalments of housing loan were to be waived of, but the OPs-Bank did not do so, rather demanded a sum of Rs.34,000/- towards outstanding instalments till June, 2006. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, contented that deceased did avail housing loan and was insured under the scheme, rather, at the time of applying for the insurance cover, the deceased had signed a declaration of good health, which reflects that he was of sound health.


They further contend that the deceased was suffering from chronic alcoholic diseases prior to the date of enrolment of policy, dated, 16.12.2004, hence, their was concealment/suppression of material facts, as such the deceased was not entitled for the waver of the instalments. Hence, it is contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits/documents, in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The predecessor in interest of the complainant purchased a policy in December, 2004, from the OP No.1-Bank, which policy, is, named and styled as ‘Super Surksha Group Life Insurance Scheme’. He had obtained a housing loan of Rs.2,50,000/- under, the aforesaid policy, from, the OP No.1-Bank and on demise of the predecessor-in-interest of the complainants, the, complainants contend that the OP No.1-Bank, was obliged under, the canons of the insurance policy, as, purchased by their predecessor-in-interest, from the OP No.1-Bank, to, waive of, their, housing loan, which they did not do so, rather, untenably demanded a sum of Rs.34,000/- till June, 2006. Therefore, the complainants pray, for, a relief that the balance loan amount, be, waived of, which, the, OP No.1-Bank was obliged to do so. So also, relief of damage is prayed for.

6. The OP No.1-Bank contests and resists the reliefs as prayed, for, by the complainants against them, on, the ground that, their, was an infraction, of, the solemn principle of ubberime fides on which all contracts of insurance are anvilled, as, though the deceased was obliged, to, make a declaration of good health, yet, he failed to do so.


The said condition is anchored upon a recital, in, Annexure-F, of, the deceased being afflicted with Mallory Weiss Syndrome, as diagnosed on, an endoscopy of the deceased having being conducted on 28.01.2005. So also, the, ultimate demise of the deceased attributed to intestinal bleeding and shock has been attributed, to, the existence of the Mallory Weiss Syndrome, which the OPs, contends, to, be, existing at, the, time of the deceased having purchased the policy, which ailment, though, he, was obliged to declare, he, failed to do so, hence, resulting in transgression of the principle of ubberime fides , which, as, a corollary, vitiates the policy, on, its having been obtained by suppression veri, hence, exculpating the liability of the OPs.

7. Be, that, as it may, the OPs, has not adduced cogent and satisfactory evidence of any medical practitioner disclosing the fact that, in, case Mallory weiss syndrome, manifests itself in the body of a patient , the, signs, of, its, manifestation would come to the knowledge of the patient. Nor also, evidence has been adduced, that, whether the eruption of Mallory weiss syndrome has patent or latent traces. In the absence of the above cogent evidence, it is extremely hazardous for us, to, conclude that even, if, the said Mallory weiss syndrome manifested or erupted in the body of the patient, who, is, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the deceased, he would have, had a chance to be in the know of or be aware that his body has been manifested with the said syndrome.


Only in the face, of, the above evidence emanating, which, is, rather, not, forthcoming, would we be compelled to, conclude, that, the deceased, despite, knowing or being aware that his body is afflicted with Mallory weiss syndrome, had, suppressed the fact of, its, existence, at, the time of his purchasing the policy, from, the OPs and, that, hence, for active suppression, of, his awareness of, the traces of Mallory weiss syndrome, the, policy would, be, vitiated for infraction of the principle of ubbermie fides, as, without awareness, their could be no suppression.

8. Consequently, we, dis-concur with the purported ground of the OPs-Bank, to, deny the reliefs to, the, complainants on the ground, that, the, deceased had suppressed material facts, at, the time of his purchasing the insurance policy from them, more so, for the reason that even the OPs-Bank, has, not been able to adduce evidence that the intestinal bleeding owing to which the deceased met his end, was, also, a condition prevalent at the time of the purchase of the policy by him and he was aware of or acquainted with it and, had, suppressed the said fact. As such, the action of the OPs-Bank, in not waiving off, the balance amount of the loan instalments, was not justified, which amounts to a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs-Bank.

Sh. Rajeev Sood S/o Late Sh. Naveen Sood,

C/o Himachal Photo Store,

10 The Mall Shimla-1, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. SBIC PSL, P.O. Bag No. 24, GPO, New Delhi-110001, Through its Manager.



2. State Bank Of India, The Mall Shimla-1,

Through its Branch Manager.



3. State Bank Of Patiala, The Mall Shimla-1,

Through its Branch Manager.



4. Indian Overseas Bank, The Mall Shimla-1,

Through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite Parties










O R D E R:






This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is holder of credit card bearing No.431757550274454124 issued by the OP No.1, hence, in the month of December, 2006, made purchases for a sum of Rs.6700/-. He further avers that in order to clear dues of Rs.7363/-, issued a cheque bearing No.964992 dated 28.12.2006, drawn on Indian Overseas Bank Shimla, OP No.4 which was put in the collection box of OP No.1.


The complainant further proceeded to aver that he received the statement of account, issued by the OP No.1, for the month of January, 2007, wherein an amount of Rs.7363.75 was reflected as the opening balance and an amount of Rs.392.84 plus Rs.266.24 has been shown as ‘free payment not received by due date’ and interest charges purchases.


He further avers that thereafter, he applied for the statement of account from his banker, i.e. OP No.4, wherein, it was reflected that the cheque issued by him for the payment of dues, was duly encashed by the OP No.1, in the month of January, though, his card was blocked by OP No.1, for non-payment of dues, in the month of February, 2007, whereas, the OP No.1 continued to issue monthly statements of accounts reflecting outstanding balance and interest charges. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in his favour.

2. The OPs No.3 & 4, in its written version, to the complaint, besides raising preliminary objections, contended by OP No.4, that, cheque bearing No.964992 dated 28.12.2006 was received by it, for clearance on 25.01.2007, and payment was released on, 25.01.2007, from the account of the complainant. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice. However, the OPs No.1 to 3, did not contest the complaint, hence, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant was holder of credit card bearing No.43175750274454124, issued by the No.1. He is aggrieved of the fact that though he has cleared the entire outstanding amount qua the aforesaid credit card, yet, the OP No.1 continued to issue monthly statements reflecting outstanding amount, hence, has sought direction against the OP No.1 not to claim an amount of Rs.6549.96, as also stop issuing monthly statements.

6. The OP No.4, in its written version has contended that the cheque bearing No.964992 dated 28.12.2006, was received by it for collection, which was cleared by it, on 25.01.2007. Since, the averment as made by the complainant in the complaint, has, not, come to be repulsed by the OPs No. 1 to 3, and has also remained un-benumed, hence, it is to be construed that the OP No.1 by issuing monthly statements thereby reflecting outstanding amounts in it, not only committed deficiency in service, but also, indulged in an unfair trade practice. As such, the demands as raised in Annexure C-7, deserve to be set aside by issuing further direction to the OP No.1 not to issue monthly statements qua the credit card aforesaid.

7. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and set aside and quash the demand as raised in Annexure C-7 and also direct the OP No.1 not to issue monthly statements qua credit card bearing No.4317 5750 2745 4124 in future, as the said card, is, not in operation. Besides, this, the OP No.1 is also saddled with damages of Rs.5000/- for causing unnecessary and uncalled for harassment to the complainant.


In addition to this, the OP No.1 shall also pay litigation cost, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP No.1, to the complainant. However, the complaint qua remaining OPs is dismissed being not maintainable. The learned counsel for the contesting parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, whereas, the certified copy of this order shall be sent to the remaining OPs through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Kulwant Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh r/o village Sarwarpur, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.



…..Complainant.

Versus



1- Manager, State Bank of India, branch Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.

2- General Manager, State Bank of India, House no.C-5/G, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(East) Mumbai-400051.

….Opposite parties.








O R D E R







1- Complainant an agriculturist, owning 7 killas of land in village Ghungrali Sikhan, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana, was in dire need of money, for purchase of pesticides of his wheat and sugarcane crops. Consequently, applied for crop loan of Rs.2 lacs to opposite party no.1, who got formalities completed from the complainant. In sequences, simple mortgage deed dated 3.4.2008 was got registered qua his land measuring 8 kanals, on the basis of which, mutation was sanctioned in favour of opposite party bank.


Opposite party no.1 engaged Sh. Jagmohan Singh Adv., for verification of title of the complainant over the mortgaged land. On completion of formalities, complainant met field officer Ms Kuljit Kaur, who intimated acceptance of the loan application, but insisted making available signed blank papers, which request was declined by the complainant and refused to sign blank papers. He insisted to fill up blank loan papers before signing the same. Then he was called after 2 days to the bank, to enable to consult manager of the bank.


After 2 days, complainant visited the bank and the field officer again asked to come after 2 days, as she had not talked to the manager. This they deliberately did with malafide intention, to harass the complainant. Complainant then met opposite party no.1, for release of loan amount through cheques, but he did not entertain the request. Field Officer then consulted manager of opposite party no.1 and subsequently, opposite party no.1 refused to release the loan amount, without assigning any reason. On account of non-release of loan amount, complainant suffered huge damages to his wheat crop, which was damaged on account of non-availability of pesticides and consequently, was also unable to sow sugarcane crop.


Complainant has to spend Rs.25,000/- for preparing loan papers. He was harassed by opposite party no.1 and its field officer, deliberately and intentionally, by not clearing his loan case despite obtaining and completion of all formalities, for sanction of the loan. Act of opposite party claimed amount to deficiency in services. So, in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, sought compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- from opposite parties.

2- Opposite party in reply took objection that complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no cause of action and is filed with ulterior motive, by concealing true facts and is also bad for non joinder and misjoinder of parties. However, it is admitted that complainant approached opposite party no.1, for crop loan and mortgaged his land by registered deed in favour of the bank and that they also obtained legal report qua the loan case of the complainant. But denied that complainant wanted to have loan of Rs.2 lacs which was sanctioned, subject to completion of formalities. Formalities required for sanction of the loan, were not completed by the complainant. As per bank norms, field officer requested complainant telephonically and through personal visits as well, to complete formalities immediately, so that loan amount is disbursed in his favour.


But he did not submit certificate from the concerned patwari, to show that was cultivating the land on theka (chakota), nor made available revenue record qua his land, to enable them to ascertain his eligibility for KCC limit. Complainant as such has concealed material facts from the Fora. Complainant hurriedly executed registered mortgage deed in favour of the bank, as he was to go to Haryana State, for harvesting the wheat crop, on combine. No harassment was caused to him. It is consequently denied that they insisted for signing blank loan papers from the complainant.

3- Complainant in support of plea, tendered own affidavit and of others along with certain documents. Whereas, opposite party no.1 placed affidavit of its Chief Manager, in support of the defence.

4- Complainant through counsel stood heard.

5- Suffice to say outrightly that complainant had applied for crop loan of Rs.2 lacs with opposite party no.1. In order to secure such loan, he executed registered mortgage deed (Ex.C1) in favour of opposite party bank, mortgaging his owned and possessed land in their favour. Opposite party no.1 had also engaged services of Sh. Jagmohan Singh Adv., to verify title of the complainant, over the land and to report whether it was free from encumbrances or not.


Said advocate vide his report Ex.C2 dated 29.3.2008, reported that land was free from all types of encumbrances and complainant was owner in possession thereof. Further, he certified that documents regarding the property were genuine and legal. Further, he reported that complainant was owner of more land, situated in village Ghungrali Sikhan and Bhaghor, Tehsil Samrala, as apparent from jamabandi issued by the concerned patwari, which he had attached with his report. Along with report, he appended certificate of title and submitted the same to opposite party bank.

6- In addition, complainant had submitted own affidavit Ex.C3, stating on oath that he was absolute owner in possession of the landed property mentioned therein and it was ancestral property inherited from father, which is free from encumbrances. Certificate Ex.C4 qua detail of property, was also appended. Ex.C9 to Ex.C17 are copies of the jamabandi for the landed property owned and possessed by the complainant or possessed by him on theka.

7- It is in such scenario grouse and grievance of the complainant that he had performed and completed entire formalities, to enable him for obtaining the crop loan, but the field officer of the opposite party insisted for signing blank papers of the bank, which he refused. This they did with malafide motive and consequently, despite his repeated requests, visits and serving legal notice Ex.C5 dated 23.4.2008, failed to release the loan in his favour, which was conveyed by field officer, to be sanctioned.


Though, opposite party have denied these allegations of malafide, as levelled by the complainant, in his complaint and took plea that he failed to complete formalities as per bank norms. Due to his failure to complete formalities and non furnishing of certificate from concerned revenue patwari, showing him in cultivation of the land on theka (chakota), the loan amount could not be released. In support of the defence, opposite party have relied on affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. V.K. Aneja, its Chief Manager.

8- We may state that in this complaint, complainant in addition to his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, supporting all his averments of the complaint, has also based reliance on affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Sh. Nirmal Singh. Said Nirmal Singh deposed in his affidavit that had given his land on chakota basis to the complainant since 3-4 years. Vide jamabandi Ex.C12 and Ex.C14, Sh. Nirmal Singh and
Faqir Singh are recorded co-owners of the land.

9- It is in the backdrop of aforesaid circumstances to be seen and adjudged sanctity of allegations of the complainant. With the risk of repetition, be it stated that complainant has taken plea that field officer and manager of opposite party no.1 bank insisted signing blank loan papers of the bank, before releasing the loan amount through cheques and he declined to sign blank papers, resulting in non-release of the loan amount. It is apparent that all formalities for obtaining crop loan were certainly completed by the complainant. As opposite party obtained registered mortgage deed of his land executed in their favour, in order to secure their interest, in case of release of the loan amount.


They had mortgaged property of the complainant and also got mutation sanctioned, as is alleged by the complainant in his complaint and not denied specifically by the opposite party. The mortgage deed Ex.C1 is dated 3.4.2008 and before getting the land mortgaged, had obtained report of an advocate Ex.C2 dated 29.3.2008, to the effect that the land of the complainant was free from all encumbrances. In addition to it, complainant was owning other land and also cultivating the land, details of which he had specified in his report Ex.C2. So, we take that mortgaging of the land was the last step or last nail in the coffin in the loan application, to enable opposite party no.1, to release loan amount in favour of the complainant.


But they failed to release the same, for reasons well known to the manager and field officer of the opposite party bank. Resultantly, complainant was forced to issue legal notice dated 23.4.2008 Ex.C5 to the opposite party, which they received under postal receipt Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. Though the notice was replied by opposite party vide reply Ex.C8, claiming that complainant failed to furnish certificate from concerned patwari, regarding cultivating the land on theka and that his allegations were wrong.

10- It appears insistence of opposite party to resist claim of the complainant that he failed to make available certificate of patwari, regarding possession of land on theka, is baseless and wrong. Such excuse appears to be extraneous, having no nexus with the main object of the loan application. Loan was sought by the complainant, after mortgaging his owned and possessed land and to protect crop on owned and possessed land as well as land in possession on theka. If obtaining certificate from patwari was a must or necessity before release of the loan amount, then in our view, opposite party ought to have done it outrightly under the garb of completing formalities, for sanction of the loan and in such event, ought not to have forced the complainant, to mortgage his owned and possessed land, by registered deed in favour of the bank.


They after obtaining report of their engaged counsel, qua feasibility of the land being free from all types of encumbrances, got it mortgaged in their favour. It means upto that stage of mortgaging, report of patwari regarding theka land, was not deemed necessity by the manager and field officer of the bank. Consequently, we have no hesitation to digest and gallop claim of the complainant that opposite party no.1 and its officials deliberately failed to release the loan amount and had been insisting for signing blank loan papers of the bank, which he declined.

11- We feel that forcing a prospective loanee to sign blank papers of the bank before release of loan amount, would certainly amount to twisting their arms, to compel and force a loanee, to agree to their unethical, arbitrary and illegal insistence. Because no institution can insist a loanee, who is entering into loan agreement with the bank, to execute bank documents or sign printed documents, columns of which are left blank. They as such resorted to unethical, unfair trade practice, by asking the complainant, to sign blank papers of the bank, in order to avail the loan. Refusal of the complainant to sign such blank loan papers of the bank, was certainly justified. Bank officials might have done so, with some ulterior motive and when complainant failed to fulfill such ulterior motive or design, they refused to release loan amount in his favour.



12- By not releasing loan amount after completion of all formalities, obtaining registered mortgage deed of the land, opposite party no.1 would be guilty of mis-conduct, negligence and not rendering proper services to its own consumer. Therefore, complaint deserves to be allowed for such deficiency in service on their part.

13- Complainant has claimed for the deficiencies, compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. We can take judicial notice of the fact that energy, time must have been wasted by the complainant, for procuring documents such as revenue papers from the revenue authorities, along with other papers, to obtain crop loan from the opposite party. Thereafter, he was harassed by forcing to visit the bank, time and again, on one pretext or the other that field officer of the bank wanted to consult branch manager and again that could not consult the matter with him.


Subsequently, after few visits, refused to release the loan amount. Complainant in his own affidavit has claimed that his wheat crop withered, due to non availability of loan amount, as he could not purchase pesticides. To such effect, affidavit Ex.CW3/A of Sh. Ranjit Singh is also filed. Though there is no report of expert as to what extent, wheat crop of the complainant was affected, on account of want of spray of pesticides. But certainly, he must have suffered certain loss. Complainant was harassed for no fault of his own, due to illegal attitude of officials of opposite party no.1.

14- Therefore, complainant on account of such harassment and loss suffered, deserves to be compensated with reasonable compensation, which may be eye-opener to the persons managing affairs of public banks or who were controlling them. The management of the banks must take notice that these nationalised banks are to implement policies of the State, to watch interest of the agriculturists as well as of the country, to make country sufficient on agriculturist front, so that people of the country are feeded through the grains produced by farmers of the country. This can only be achieved, if all facilities at proper time, are made available to the farmers. The State with such intention have framed the policy and directed the financial banks to help farmer community, by granting crop loans in their favour.


But the officer or officials who are supposed to implement such policies, have been creating hurdles and obstacles in achieving such guidelines, by not releasing loan to the applicants, on one pretext or the other, which are illegal. Consequently, objective with which the policy is framed by the State, stands not achieved, but rather defeated. In the present case, manager as well as field officer of opposite party no.1, by their illegal acts, forced the complainant to knock door of this Fora, to get his hurt feelings satisfied and to get justice, which was denied to him.

15- In view of above aspects, we allow the complaint and as a result, direct opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant, along with litigation costs of Rs.2000/-, within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of charge.

16- We make it clear that opposite party no.1 bank would be liable to pay amount for follies and illegalities committed by its manager as well as field officer and for such illegalities, they would be liable to pay the amount to the complainant. But opposite party no.1 bank shall be at liberty to recover this amount from salary of its manager and field officer, due to whose fault and illegal act, they are ordered to pay compensation and costs to the complainant.


We hope higher authorities, managing affairs of the financial institutions like national bank in the country, shall frame clearcut guidelines, by passing directions to the persons responsible for disbursing loan, so that consumers are not harassed any more in future.

Gurdeep Singh sonof Sh. Faqir Singh son of Sh. Gurdial Singh, r/o village Sarwarpur, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.



…..Complainant.

Versus



1- Manager, State Bank of India, branch Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.

2- General Manager, State Bank of India, House no.C-5/G, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(East) Mumbai-400051.

….Opposite parties.


O R D E R








1- Complainant an agriculturist, owning 3 killas of land in village Ghungrali Sikhan, Baghaur, Ludhiana, was in dire need of money, for purchase of pesticides of his wheat and sugarcane crops. Consequently, applied for crop loan of Rs.2 lacs to opposite party no.1, who got formalities completed from the complainant.


In sequences, simple mortgage deed dated 3.4.2008 was got registered qua his land measuring 8 kanals, on the basis of which, mutation was sanctioned in favour of opposite party bank. Opposite party no.1 engaged Sh. Jagmohan Singh Adv., for verification of title of the complainant over the mortgaged land. On completion of formalities, complainant met field officer Ms Kuljit Kaur, who intimated acceptance of the loan application, but insisted making available signed blank papers, which request was declined by the complainant and refused to sign blank papers. He insisted to fill up blank loan papers before signing the same.


Then he was called after 2 days to the bank, to enable to consult manager of the bank. After 2 days, complainant visited the bank and the field officer again asked to come after 2 days, as she had not talked to the manager. This they deliberately did with malafide intention, to harass the complainant. Complainant then met opposite party no.1, for release of loan amount through cheques, but he did not entertain the request. Field Officer then consulted manager of opposite party no.1 and subsequently, opposite party no.1 refused to release the loan amount, without assigning any reason.


On account of non-release of loan amount, complainant suffered huge damages to his wheat crop, which was damaged on account of non-availability of pesticides and consequently, was also unable to sow sugarcane crop. Complainant has to spend Rs.25,000/- for preparing loan papers. He was harassed by opposite party no.1 and its field officer, deliberately and intentionally, by not clearing his loan case despite obtaining and completion of all formalities, for sanction of the loan. Act of opposite party claimed amount to deficiency in services. So, in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, sought compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- from opposite parties.

2- Opposite party in reply took objection that complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no cause of action and is filed with ulterior motive, by concealing true facts and is also bad for non joinder and misjoinder of parties. However, it is admitted that complainant approached opposite party no.1, for crop loan and mortgaged his land by registered deed in favour of the bank and that they also obtained legal report qua the loan case of the complainant. But denied that complainant wanted to have loan of Rs.2 lacs which was sanctioned, subject to completion of formalities. Formalities required for sanction of the loan, were not completed by the complainant.


As per bank norms, field officer requested complainant telephonically and through personal visits as well, to complete formalities immediately, so that loan amount is disbursed in his favour. But he did not submit certificate from the concerned patwari, to show that was cultivating the land on theka (chakota), nor made available revenue record qua his land, to enable them to ascertain his eligibility for KCC limit. Complainant as such has concealed material facts from the Fora. Complainant hurriedly executed registered mortgage deed in favour of the bank, as he was to go to Haryana State, for harvesting the wheat crop, on combine. No harassment was caused to him. It is consequently denied that they insisted for signing blank loan papers from the complainant.

3- Complainant in support of plea, tendered own affidavit and of others along with certain documents. Whereas, opposite party no.1 placed affidavit of its Chief Manager, in support of the defence.

4- Complainant through counsel stood heard.

5- Suffice to say outrightly that complainant had applied for crop loan of Rs.2 lacs with opposite party no.1. In order to secure such loan, he executed registered mortgage deed (Ex.C1) in favour of opposite party bank, mortgaging his owned and possessed land in their favour. Opposite party no.1 had also engaged services of Sh. Jagmohan Singh Adv., to verify title of the complainant, over the land and to report whether it was free from encumbrances or not.


Said advocate vide his report Ex.C2 dated 29.3.2008, reported that land was free from all types of encumbrances and complainant was owner in possession thereof. Further, he certified that documents regarding the property were genuine and legal. Further, he reported that complainant was owner of more land, situated in village Ghungrali Sikhan and Bhaghor, Tehsil Samrala, as apparent from jamabandi issued by the concerned patwari, which he had attached with his report. Along with report, he appended certificate of title and submitted the same to opposite party bank.

6- In addition, complainant had submitted own affidavit Ex.C9, stating on oath that he was absolute owner in possession of the landed property mentioned therein and it was ancestral property inherited from father, which is free from encumbrances. Certificate Ex.C8 qua detail of property, was also appended. Ex.C10 to Ex.C15 are copies of the jamabandi for the landed property owned and possessed by the complainant or possessed by him on theka.

7- It is in such scenario grouse and grievance of the complainant that he had performed and completed entire formalities, to enable him for obtaining the crop loan, but the field officer of the opposite party insisted for signing blank papers of the bank, which he refused. This they did with malafide motive and consequently, despite his repeated requests, visits and serving legal notice Ex.C4 dated 23.4.2008, failed to release the loan in his favour, which was conveyed by field officer, to be sanctioned.


Though, opposite party have denied these allegations of malafide, as levelled by the complainant, in his complaint and took plea that he failed to complete formalities as per bank norms. Due to his failure to complete formalities and non furnishing of certificate from concerned revenue patwari, showing him in cultivation of the land on theka (chakota), the loan amount could not be released. In support of the defence, opposite party have relied on affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. V.K. Aneja, its Chief Manager.

8- We may state that in this complaint, complainant in addition to his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, supporting all his averments of the complaint, has also based reliance on affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Sh. Faqir Singh. Said Faqir Singh deposed in his affidavit that had given his land on chakota basis to the complainant since 3-4 years. Vide jamabandi Ex.C13 and Ex.C15, Sh. Faqir Singh is recorded owner of the land alongwith other co-owners.

9- It is in the backdrop of aforesaid circumstances to be seen and adjudged sanctity of allegations of the complainant. With the risk of repetition, be it stated that complainant has taken plea that field officer and manager of opposite party no.1 bank insisted signing blank loan papers of the bank, before releasing the loan amount through cheques and he declined to sign blank papers, resulting in non-release of the loan amount.


It is apparent that all formalities for obtaining crop loan were certainly completed by the complainant. As opposite party obtained registered mortgage deed of his land executed in their favour, in order to secure their interest, in case of release of the loan amount. They had mortgaged property of the complainant and also got mutation sanctioned, as is alleged by the complainant in his complaint and not denied specifically by the opposite party. The mortgage deed Ex.C1 is dated 3.4.2008 and before getting the land mortgaged, had obtained report of an advocate Ex.C2 dated 29.3.2008, to the effect that the land of the complainant was free from all encumbrances. In addition to it, complainant was owning other land and also cultivating the land, details of which he had specified in his report Ex.C2.


So, we take that mortgaging of the land was the last step or last nail in the coffin in the loan application, to enable opposite party no.1, to release loan amount in favour of the complainant. But they failed to release the same, for reasons well known to the manager and field officer of the opposite party bank. Resultantly, complainant was forced to issue legal notice dated 23.4.2008 Ex.C4 to the opposite party, which they received under postal receipt Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. Though the notice was replied by opposite party vide reply Ex.C7, claiming that complainant failed to furnish certificate from concerned patwari, regarding cultivating the land on theka and that his allegations were wrong.

10- It appears insistence of opposite party to resist claim of the complainant that he failed to make available certificate of patwari, regarding possession of land on theka, is baseless and wrong. Such excuse appears to be extraneous, having no nexus with the main object of the loan application. Loan was sought by the complainant, after mortgaging his owned and possessed land and to protect crop on owned and possessed land as well as land in possession on theka. If obtaining certificate from patwari was a must or necessity before release of the loan amount, then in our view, opposite party ought to have done it outrightly under the garb of completing formalities, for sanction of the loan and in such event, ought not to have forced the complainant, to mortgage his owned and possessed land, by registered deed in favour of the bank.


They after obtaining report of their engaged counsel, qua feasibility of the land being free from all types of encumbrances, got it mortgaged in their favour. It means upto that stage of mortgaging, report of patwari regarding theka land, was not deemed necessity by the manager and field officer of the bank. Consequently, we have no hesitation to digest and gallop claim of the complainant that opposite party no.1 and its officials deliberately failed to release the loan amount and had been insisting for signing blank loan papers of the bank, which he declined.

11- We feel that forcing a prospective loanee to sign blank papers of the bank before release of loan amount, would certainly amount to twisting their arms, to compel and force a loanee, to agree to their unethical, arbitrary and illegal insistence. Because no institution can insist a loanee, who is entering into loan agreement with the bank, to execute bank documents or sign printed documents, columns of which are left blank. They as such resorted to unethical, unfair trade practice, by asking the complainant, to sign blank papers of the bank, in order to avail the loan. Refusal of the complainant to sign such blank loan papers of the bank, was certainly justified. Bank officials might have done so, with some ulterior motive and when complainant failed to fulfill such ulterior motive or design, they refused to release loan amount in his favour.



12- By not releasing loan amount after completion of all formalities, obtaining registered mortgage deed of the land, opposite party no.1 would be guilty of mis-conduct, negligence and not rendering proper services to its own consumer. Therefore, complaint deserves to be allowed for such deficiency in service on their part.

13- Complainant has claimed for the deficiencies, compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. We can take judicial notice of the fact that energy, time must have been wasted by the complainant, for procuring documents such as revenue papers from the revenue authorities, along with other papers, to obtain crop loan from the opposite party. Thereafter, he was harassed by forcing to visit the bank, time and again, on one pretext or the other that field officer of the bank wanted to consult branch manager and again that could not consult the matter with him.


Subsequently, after few visits, refused to release the loan amount. Complainant in his own affidavit has claimed that his wheat crop withered, due to non availability of loan amount, as he could not purchase pesticides. To such effect, affidavit Ex.CW3/A of Sh. Ranjit Singh is also filed. Though there is no report of expert as to what extent, wheat crop of the complainant was affected, on account of want of spray of pesticides. But certainly, he must have suffered certain loss. Complainant was harassed for no fault of his own, due to illegal attitude of officials of opposite party no.1.

14- Therefore, complainant on account of such harassment and loss suffered, deserves to be compensated with reasonable compensation, which may be eye-opener to the persons managing affairs of public banks or who were controlling them. The management of the banks must take notice that these nationalised banks are to implement policies of the State, to watch interest of the agriculturists as well as of the country, to make country sufficient on agriculturist front, so that people of the country are feeded through the grains produced by farmers of the country. This can only be achieved, if all facilities at proper time, are made available to the farmers.


The State with such intention have framed the policy and directed the financial banks to help farmer community, by granting crop loans in their favour. But the officer or officials who are supposed to implement such policies, have been creating hurdles and obstacles in achieving such guidelines, by not releasing loan to the applicants, on one pretext or the other, which are illegal. Consequently, objective with which the policy is framed by the State, stands not achieved, but rather defeated. In the present case, manager as well as field officer of opposite party no.1, by their illegal acts, forced the complainant to knock door of this Fora, to get his hurt feelings satisfied and to get justice, which was denied to him.

15- In view of above aspects, we allow the complaint and as a result, direct opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant, along with litigation costs of Rs.2000/-, within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of charge.

16- We make it clear that opposite party no.1 bank would be liable to pay amount for follies and illegalities committed by its manager as well as field officer and for such illegalities, they would be liable to pay the amount to the complainant. But opposite party no.1 bank shall be at liberty to recover this amount from salary of its manager and field officer, due to whose fault and illegal act, they are ordered to pay compensation and costs to the complainant.


We hope higher authorities, managing affairs of the financial institutions like national bank in the country, shall frame clear-cut guidelines, by passing directions to the persons responsible for disbursing loan, so that consumers are not harassed any more in future.

Dear Sir,
I am an army officer posted at Delhi with my Defence Salary Package account at State Bank Of India, Sector 7, Vardhman Star City Centre, Dwaka, New Delhi-110075.

I had issued two cheques from my SBI account for creating a demat account in ICICI Bank. One for Rs 975/- and the second for Rs 1,50,000/-. On 10 Dec 09, I decided to cancel this venture due to certain immediate requirement of finances, and hence gave a written application to the Branch Manager at SBI, Sector 7, Dwarka, to STOP PAYMENT OF BOTH THE CHEQUES. I had also explained the issue to the Manager personally.

By evening, on checking my account online, I noticed that Rs 50/- had been debited from my account as "Stop Payment Charges".

However, I was horrified when on 12 Dec 09, I realised that Rs 1,50,000/- had been debited from my account against the second cheque.

Can I request you to please confirm as to what action can I take against the erring bank branch, firstly to refund the money to my account and secondly for poor services.

Regards,

Vipin Bhatia

S.C. CASE NO. : FA/235/2009



DATE OF FILING : 02.07.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 10.11.2009


APPELLANT



The Manager

State Bank of India

Midnapore Branch

Post & P.S. Midnapore

Dist. Paschim Midnapur

Customer Grievance Cell.



RESPONDENT



Mr. Sukumar Mandal

S/o Late Santosh Kumar Mondal

Post & P.S. Midnapore

School Bazar,

Dist. Paschim Midnapur.

Now residing at –

Miabazar (Talmalbasti)

Post & P.S. Midnapore

Dist. Paschim Midnapur.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. G.C.Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. A.N.Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 31.3.09 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case No. 64/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant thereby directing the OP Bank to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant together with Rs. 2,662/- being the interest @ 3.5% on Rs. 60,000/- and also directed the OP to pay interest @ 12% per annum with quarterly rests on failure in paying the amount within the stipulated period together with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

The complainant/Respondent’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant had a Savings Bank Account with the Appellant Bank and when the complainant had been to the Bank for updating his passbook, he was surprised to find that on 8.1.08 Rs. 60,000/- had been withdrawn from his account. It was the specific case of the complainant that he never withdrew the said amount and that the complainant took up the matter with the Appellant Bank, but the Bank never accommodated the complainant in this regard and hence, the petition of complaint was filed for proper redressal.

The Appellant/Bank contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the petition of complaint had been filed on false and fictitious grounds and the complainant having himself withdrawn the amount from his S.B.Account on the basis of a withdrawal slip question of repaying the complainant the said amount does not arise at all. There was no deficiency in service at the instance of the Appellant Bank and accordingly, the OP prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that on the very face of the materials on records there is no doubt that the complainant never withdrew the amount from his Savings Bank Account claimed by the Appellant Bank and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant Bank that from the materials on record it would be evident that the complainant was in the habit of withdrawing money from his S.B.Account from time to time and under similar circumstances it is the complainant who withdrew the amount of Rs. 60,000/- from his S.B.Account through withdrawal slip after signing the same properly. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, on the point of genuineness of the signature of the complainant, as it would appear from the withdrawal slip, it was urged before the Ld. District Forum to have the signature of the complainant appearing on the disputed withdrawal slip to be tallied and examined with his admitted signature by a hand-writing expert, but such prayer on the part of the Appellant was never considered and allowed by the Ld. District Forum. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged before us that the procedure adopted on behalf of the banking authorities is a full-proof procedure and the complainant/Respondent having withdrawn his money from his account through withdrawal slip after signing the same, question of repaying the amount to the complainant does not arise at all. The Ld. District Forum was not justified in allowing the petition of complaint and the analogy put forward therein is not supportable under the law and as such, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant as discussed above and have gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record and find that in this case it is the positive case of the complainant that he never withdrew the amount of Rs. 60,000/- through withdrawal slip and that the money has been siphoned from the Savings Bank of the complainant by some other agencies at the connivance of the banking authority, which tantamounts to deficiency in service and that the bank is liable to repay the amount taken away from the S.B.Account of the complainant. The Bank/Appellant, on the other hand, has tried to put forward a story to the effect that it was the complainant who himself withdrew the amount from the S.B.Account and question of repaying the complainant of that amount does not arise at all. On perusal of the materials on record we find that the observation made by the Ld. District Forum so far as it relates to non-tallying of the signature of the complainant, as it appears on the withdrawal slip, to that of the other signatures of the complainant appearing on the official records, is reasonably accepted. When the disputed signature apparently does not tally with the signature of the complainant appearing on the other documents including some other previous withdrawal slips, we are of considered opinion that the verdict of the Ld. District Forum is reasonably well and justified and question of interfering with such finding of the Ld. District Forum does not arise at all. Considering the present matter in the light of above discussions we are of not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which is accordingly affirmed. In the result, there appears no merit in the present Appeal the same is liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is ordered that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement passed by the Ld. District Forum stands affirmed.

Appeal case No.646/2009

Date of institution:18.11.2009

Date of decision :25.11.2009



Vipin Batra, Managing Partner, M/s Northern Coir, Flat No.37-B, Kendriya Vihar-II, Sector 25, Panchkula.

….…Appellant

V E R S U S

1] State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

2] Mrs.Manishwar Kaur, Partner, M/s Northern Coir, B-21, Mansarovar Garden, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110 015

3] Mr.Tejveer Singh, B-21, Mansarovar Garden, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110 015 .…Respondents



Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 16.10.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.



Present: Sh.Vipin Batra, appellant in person.


BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor(Retd), Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member



JUDGMENT

25.11.2009


Justice Pritam Pal, President

1. This appeal by Vipin Batra - complainant who is husband of respondent No.2 Mrs. Manishwar Kaur, a partner of firm namely M/s Northern Coil, New Delhi is directed against the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing NO.692 of 2009 was dismissed on the ground that the issue involved had already been decided against him (complainant) upto the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, New Delhi.

The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.

2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant and OP No.2 were partners in M/s Northern Coir Firm, which ultimately dissolved by OP No.2 on 25.9.2006 vide Annexure C-1. It was alleged that the concerned lender branch of OP No.1 Bank converted the account of said partnership firm to sole account with OP No.2-Manishwar Kaur as beneficiary and it was effected through a “consent letter” alleged to have been given by the complainant and this came to his notice only through RTI application Ann.C-2. It was further alleged that the complainant being the managing partner of the said firm had instructed the OP bank not to release the securities pledged by the partnership firm to OPs No.2 & 3 in the absence of any valid dissolution deed of the said closed firm but the OP bank had acted in an irresponsible manner and released the said securities to OPs No.2 & 3 and due to this act of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, the complainant had to suffer a lot. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. It was also stated that the complainant had earlier filed complaint case No.718 of 2007 with the District Forum on 27.8.2007, which was pending before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

3. On the other hand, the stand of OP No.1 before the District Forum was that the complaint was not maintainable being barred by the principle of res-judicata as the earlier complaint bearing No.718 of 2007 filed by the complainant having same questions of facts & law had already been decided & dismissed by the Forum as well as by the State Commission in Appeal No.826 of 2008 filed by the complainant and the matter was then sub-judice before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. It was further stated that the documents which were presented to the bank in normal course of business were bearing the signatures of the Partners at each and every occasion, which revealed the resemblance of the same with the genuine signatures to such an extent that any person with normal prudence would be able to conclude the similarity and identity of the signatures. It was pleaded that the District Forum and the State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh had concurrently held that the partnership between the complainant and Mrs.Manishwar Kaur stood dissolved since the said partnership was at Will and after the dissolution of the partnership, Mrs.Manishwar Kaur took over the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile partnership firm in the capacity of proprietor and sequel to the closing of the account with the OP Bank upon due payments of the loan amount by Mrs.Manishwar Kaur, it became immaterial if the said proprietorship had subsequently been converted into a partnership or not.

4. The stand of OPs No.2 & 3 before the District Forum was that the consent letter was duly signed by the complainant and the securities were released by OP No.1 only after receiving the consent letter duly signed by the complainant i.e. Vipin Batra. The OP No.1 had acted upon the instructions of complainant to release those securities in the name of OP No.2 & 3. It was further stated that the matter pending before the Hon’ble National Commission stood dismissed.

5. The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the file and hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied against the said order, complainant has come up in this appeal.

6. We have heard the appellant and also gone through the impugned order. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to mention here that this Commission had already dealt with this matter in appeal case No.826 of 2008 and disposed of the same vide its order dated 28.5.2008 by observing as under;

“There is no manner of doubt that partnership deed was registered between appellant (complainant) and his wife Mrs. Manishwar Kaur in which Smt. Manishwar Kaur was partner to the extent of 75%. It was a partnership at will and could be dissolved in view of clause NO.4. Smt. Manishwar Kaur had written letter dated 22.9.2006, whose copy is annexure R-7 to the appellant Sh.Vipan Batra for cancellation or dissolution of the partnership firm as per clause-4 of the partnership deed. In view of the said letter, partnership deed stood dissolved with effect from 25.9.2006. There is another letter dated 22.9.2006 annexure R-8 which was given by the appellant to respondent NO.1 in which he had made reference to his earlier letter dated 18.4.2006, whose copy is annexure R-6 with regard to the stoppage of the operation of the account and recovery of dues. In the said letter he submitted that he was withdrawing his earlier instructions given in the said letter dated 18.4.2006 and further he had no objection in dissolution of the partnership and Manishwar Kaur taking over the assets and liabilities of the firm in the capacity of the proprietor. It was also conveyed that they were in process of amicably settlement of their differences. In view of this letter Smt. Manishwar Kaur became proprietor of the firm and she had taken over assets and liabilities of firm in the capacity of proprietor.

Thus, she had taken over assets and liabilities in legal manner with the consent of appellant. Therefore, there is no question that the appellant had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.19 lacs in taking over assets and liabilities by his wife by stopping joint account through respondent NO.1 . Appellant had also not led any evidence with regard to acquiring of stocks and other securities. Thus, it is appellant who himself had allowed his wife to take over the assets and liabilities and to become proprietor of the firm in view of letter annexure R-8 which was addressed to the State Bank of India. The allegation of the appellant that his wife had cheated him or had committed forgery cannot be decided in the consumer Fora . For this purpose, he had to knock at the door of civil court. Since, partnership was at will, so, it stood dissolved from the letter/notice dated 22.9.2006, whose copy is annexure R-7 and thereafter she became proprietor vide annexure R-8/C-4. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the respondents had caused any deficiency in service to the appellant.”

7. Without going into further details, suffice it to say that factual matrix by and large are admitted by OPs NO.2 & 3. The only noticeable point raised before us at the time of admission of this appeal was that the OPs in connivance with each other had cheated the complainant. A perusal of the above observations made by this Commission in its earlier order dated 28.5.2008 would show that similar point of argument was earlier raised. If there is any grievance of having cheated him by committing some forgery on the document presented before the bank, that would require a great deal of evidence and can be decided only by the civil Court as rightly observed by the learned District Forum by making reference of observations already made by this Commission in Ranu Zadoo Khurana Vs H.D.F.C. Bank, 2009 CTJ 681(CP).

8. In this view of the matter, we do not find it a fit case even for admission. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that appellant/complainant shall be at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance by approaching the competent civil court, if so advised.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.