Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 248

Thread: State Bank of India

  1. #106
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    C.C.No.73/2009

    K.R.Boopathy,

    S/o.Late.K.P.Ramasamy,

    5/1073, @@@@hi Nagar,

    Kalingarayanpalayam,

    Bhavani 638 301,

    Erode District. .. Complainant.

    /Vs/;

    The Branch Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Bhavani Branch, .. Opposite party.

    Bhavani, Erode District.

    This complaint came up for final hearing on 10.12.2009, before this Forum, in the presence of Thiru.V.M.Thangavel, Advocate for the complainant, and Thiru.S.A.Shanmugavel, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing the arguments of bothsides, and perusal of the records and having stood for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following :- ORDER

    Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2002. The averments in the complaint are as follows : - The complainant K.R.Boopathy was having a Savings Bank Account, with the opposite party, since 16.10.2006 in old account No.01190015842 and the new account number is 11211858797. The minimum balance in the said bank as on 2.1.07 was Rs.503.34. The complainant had deposited a cheque on 9.1.2007 issued by State Bank of India, Coimbatore branch under Cheque No.936193 dated 29.12.06 for Rs.96,894/- for collection. The cheque amount was collected and credited in the account of the complainant on 12.2.07 and the opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.540/- towards collection charges on 12.2.2007. The balance amount was credited in the account of the complainant on 12.2.07. The balance amount in the

    /2/

    account of the complainant as on 12.2.07 was Rs.97,854.34 paise.

    2) Another cheque No.287857 dated 25.1.07 for Rs.1,52,385/- issued by the State Bank of India, Salem Branch in favour of the complainant towards the amount lying in the provident fund account of the complainant. The cheque was directly sent to the opposite party by the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Registrar Office, Salem, for collection on 12.02.07. The amount under the above mentioned cheque was credited in the account of complainant on 22.2.07. The opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.840/- towards collection charges of the cheque. After crediting the amount of Rs.1,51,565/- the total amount should be in the account of complainant as on 22.2.07 was Rs.2,48,422.34 paise.

    3) The complainant had withdrawn the following amounts on the dates mentioned below :-

    17.02.2007 - Rs.20,000.00

    20.12.2007 - Rs. 5,000.00

    03.03.2007 - Rs.15,000.00

    12.03.2007 - Rs.15,000.00

    20.03.2007 - Rs. 5,000.00

    ----------------
    Rs.60,000.00

    The Total credit up to 22.02.2007 was Rs.2,48,422.34 paise

    Total withdrawal amount till 20.03.08 was Rs. 60,000.00

    The available balance should be Rs.1,88,422.34 paise.


    4) When the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 20th March 2007 through ATM the available balance was only Rs.91,528.34 paise but the available balance should have been Rs.1,88,423.34 paise. The complainant was shocked to see that there was debit of Rs.96,894/- on 15.3.07 in his account. The complainant did not withdraw the amount of Rs.96,894/-on 15.3.07. The opposite party had taken the amount of Rs.96,894/-

    /3/

    on 15.3.07 from the account of the complainant. The complainant on seeing the debit of Rs.96,894/- on 15.3.07 was shocked and developed chest pain. He was hospitalized for “Cardiac Ailment”. He was also undergone mental agony and strain which would have endangered his life. The complainant had to suffer both physical and mental ailment due to the breach of trust and misappropriation of the amount in his account by the opposite party. The opposite party had committed deficiency in service by unauthorized withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant which resulted “Cardiac Ailment” to the complainant. The opposite party had to compensate the complainant for his misdeeds and deficiency of service, to the complainant.

    5) The complainant had estimated compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the loss caused to his money, physical suffering and mental agony. He had issued a legal notice on 5.4.07 to the opposite party demanding him to credit the amount Rs.96,894/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 22.2.07 and also compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The opposite party had acknowledged the legal notice but he did not comply with the demand of the complainant. 2nd legal notice was also sent on 3.3.09 which was also received by the opposite party and no reply was given by him. He once again failed to comply with the demand of the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint, before this Hon’ble Forum to recover the amount of Rs.96,894/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 22.2.07 and also compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with the litigation expenses.

    6) Counter averments of the opposite party are as follows :- The complaint is false, vexatious, unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations contained in the complaint except the matters that are specifically admitted herein as true.

    7) The facts are as follows :-

    a) A cheque bearing No.20042 dated 29.12.06 for Rs.96,894/- drawn on State Bank of India, Coimbatore, was lodged by Shri K.R.Boopathy for collection 9-1-2007. The proceeds of the cheque, was received from State Bank of India,
    /4/
    Coimbatore on 10.2.07. The realisation proceeds was given credit to the respective savings account through batch menu (posting of bulk transactions) in the Core Banking system. Due to connectivity problem, one leg of the entry i.e. debiting of our Coimbatore branch had been rightly posted, whereas the other leg i.e. credit posting was failed and the entire amount was parked by the system in the Branch System Suspense Account instead crediting to the respective account.

    b) When it was found that the credit was not taken place in Mr.Boopathy’s account, our Coimbatore Branch was again debited 12.2.07 and credit was given to Shri K.R.Boopathy’s account, without knowing the fact that the entry posted on 10.02.07 was placed in Branch System Suspense Account, since the Core Banking was new to branch functionaries. Core Banking system was introduced at this branch only on 27.01.2007.

    c) In our Inter-branch clearing system, double responding entry means, the customer’s account has been doubly credited by debiting the payment branch twice. Since the amount of Rs.96,864/- relates to Mr.Boopathy, it was presumed that his account was doubly credited, once on 10.2.2007 and another on 12.2.07. Instead of debiting the branch suspense account to adjust our intra office account double entry, we have erroneously debited the customers’ account.

    d) On finding out the erroneous debit in Mr.K.R.Boopathy’s account on 15.3.07, credited his account with Rs.96,894/- on 10.4.07 along with an interest amount of Rs.283/- for the delayed credit, by reversing the entry from the Branch System Suspense Account.

    e) It may be observed from the above, that the amount was neither misappropriated nor misused by anybody, but transacted in the internal account system suspense account only. This has happened due to the ‘teething’ trouble faced by branch functionaries on account of switch over of new computer Core Banking System introduced from the old system. The amount was also duly re-credited to Shri K.R.Boopathy’s account with interest.

    /5/

    f) After receiving the legal notice from the customer, the Branch Manager and another officer went to the customer’s residence and explained to him, what has occurred at the branch at that time and the Branch Manager also apologized for the erroneous debit done to his account and for the mental agony and physical sufferings caused to him.

    g) Shri K.R.Boopathy, that is the complainant, is still opposite party’s customer and has been enjoying their service by drawing his EPF pension through their Branch every month.

    8) The allegations contained in para 5 of the complaint are also false. The allegation that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service by unauthorized withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant and misappropriated the amount which resulted in cardiac ailment to the complainant are absolute false.

    9) The allegations contained in para 7 of the complaint that the complainant estimated the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the loss caused to his money, physical suffering and mental agony are absolutely false. The allegation of loss of money is an absolutely false. For the legal notices issued on 5.4.07 and 3.3.09 the Branch Manager and the Officials of the opposite party went to the house of the complainant’s and explained the above mentioned problems and he was also convinced. But to get an unlawful gain and to harass the opposite party the complainant has filed this complaint. The complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

    10) On the basis of the complaint averments and the counter averments the following issues are framed for consideration ,

    1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?

    2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

    3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for ?

    11) To establish the case of the complainant, the complainant K.R.Boopathy has been examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A14 marked. On the side of the opposite party, Thiru.R.Balakumar, Assistant Manager(Advances) of the opposite party has been examined as RW1 and Exhibits B1 to B6 have been marked.

    /6/

    12) Issue No.1 : On perusal of the complaint averments as on 2.1.07 the amount available in the complainant’s account No.11211858797 was Rs.503.34. On 9.1.07, the complainant presented the Cheque No.936193, dated 29.12.06 for Rs.96,894/-, issued by the State Bank of India, Coimbatore for collection. Another cheque No.287857 dated 25.1.07 for Rs.1,52,385/- issued by the State Bank of India, Salem Branch in favour of the complainant was presented for collection. After deducting the collection charges of Rs.540/- and Rs.840/- respectively, the amount in the complainant’s account must be Rs.2,48,422.34. The complainant had withdrawn the following amounts on the dates mentioned below :-

    17.02.2007 - Rs.20,000.00

    20.12.2007 - Rs. 5,000.00

    03.03.2007 - Rs.15,000.00

    12.03.2007 - Rs.15,000.00

    20.03.2007 - Rs. 5,000.00

    ----------------

    Rs.60,000.00

    ----------------

    The Total credit upto 22.02.2007 was Rs.2,48,422.34 paise

    Total withdrawal amount till 20.03.08was Rs. 60,000.00

    The available balance should be Rs.1,88,422.34 paise.

    After deducting the withdrawal amounts of Rs.60,000/- the balance available should be Rs.1,88,422.34. But when the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.5,000/-, on 20.3.07, through ATM the available balance was only Rs.91,528.34. There was a debit of Rs.96,894/- on 15.3.07 in his account. The complainant did not withdraw the amount of Rs.96,894/- on 15.3.07. The wrong deduction of the amount from the complainant’s account came to the knowledge of the complainant on 20.3.07. Hence the limitation starts from 20.3.07. But the complaint has been filed before this Forum on 24.6.09 without the petition to condone the delay under Sec.24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. The cause of action arose on 15.3.07 but the limitation starts from 20.3.07 when the wrong deduction came to the knowledge of the complainant. The complaint must have

    /7/

    been filed within 2 years from 20.3.07. But the complaint has been filed after the limitation period of two years was over i.e. on 24.6.2009 without the petition under Sec.24-A to condone the delay. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation and is not maintainable.

    13) Issue Nos.2 & 3 : Since we have arrived that the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation, the issue numbers 2 and 3 were not considered.

    14) In the result, the complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost.

    Dictated to the Assistant/Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the 14th day of December 2009.

  2. #107
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:33/2007.
    S.Perumal,

    S/o.Thiru Sivanu,

    Vedadhri Nagar,

    Pettai Road,

    Tirunelveli Town. …Complainant.
    ..vs..

    1. Tmt. Nirmala,

    Formerly Manager, State Bank of India,

    Adayar (Chennai) Branch,

    Now Manager, State Bank of India,

    Thiruvaiyaru Branch, Thanjavur Dt.

    2. Thiru Rajendran,

    Branch Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Adayar Branch, 3 Kasturiba Nagar,

    Chennai 600 020.

    3. The General Manager,

    State Bank of India, CIRCLETOP HOUSE

    Post Box No.737, Aparna Complex,

    16, College Lane, Chennai 600 006.

    4. The Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    V.O.C. Street, Tirunelveli Town. … Opposite parties.

    This complaint came before us for final hearing on 30-11-2009 in the presence of Thiru A.Balasubramanian, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru S.Shenbagam, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:

    ORDER

    This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

    1) The averments of the complainant in the complaint are briefly as follows: The complainant was having a savings account in the State Bank of India branch at Adayar while he was Scientist of the Structural Engineering Research Centre, (CSIR), Thramani, Chennai. His account number is 01190008880. After his retirement from service in the year 2000, he was residing at Chennai for the education of his grand children. This account was maintained by him to transact his monthly pension amount. His employer, Government of India, was depositing complainant’s pension amount in the above account every month. During 2005 he shifted his family from Chennai to Tirunelveli, his native place. To maintain his pension account the complainant has opened a savings account in the State Bank of India Tirunelveli branch on 16-1-2006 and the account number is 3003211964-2. On 25-1-2006, the complainant has sent a request letter to the Manager, State Bank of India, Adayar branch to transfer his debit amount in his savings account there to the saving account of State Bank of India Tirunelveli Town Branch. On the same day the complainant sent another option letter to his employer the CSIR Tharamani, Chennai with a request to deposit his monthly pension amount to his savings account in the State Bank of India, Tirunelveli Town Branch. The complainant has given the said requests in the proper format to his employer in the 1st week of March 2006. The employer office has considered the request of the complainant and sent a letter on 10-3-2006 to the Manager State Bank of India, Adayar Chennai Branch expressing the option of the complainant to transfer his deposit amount in his account to Tirunelveli Town Branch. The 1st opposite party who was the Manager of the Bank failed to honour the request of the complainant and further she had failed to take any action even after receiving the requisition letter from CSIR. The 1st opposite party does not have the basic courtesy to reply honouring the letters of the complainant and his employer. More over the 1st opposite party has also failed to send a line of reply and transfer the pension deposit amount to Tirunelveli Town Branch. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service which caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 3-8-2006. But no action was taken by the opposite parties on it. Subsequently in stead of transferring the savings account of the complainant from 1st opposite party to Tirunelveli Town Branch the 1st opposite party negligently and irresponsibly transferred the account to the State bank of India, Trichy Town in the month of July 2006. Hence he has filed this complaint to direct the 1st opposite party to transfer the deposit amount in his account along with reasonable interest from State Bank of India Branch at Adayar to State Bank of India, Tirunelveli Town Branch and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss and damages for deficiency of service of the opposite parties and to pay cost of this proceedings.

    2) The averment in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party which is adopted by opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 are briefly as follows: The complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts. There is no transaction or correspondence with the named persons viz.Smt.Nirmala and Sri Rajendran, on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is a retired employee of the CSIR and has been withdrawing his pension amounts from 2nd opposite party under arrangement with his employer and reopened an account at State Bank of India Branch at Tirunelveli Town subsequently. The allegations that the 1st opposite party failed to honour his request and his employer to transfer the pension deposit amount and thereby caused deficiency of service are not correct. While transferring the account from 1st opposite party to Tirunelveli Town Branch the 1st opposite party negligently transferred the account to the Trichy Town Branch and caused mental agony to the complainant is not correct. The complainant has been receiving the monthly pension from his employer CSIR Tharamani Chennai through 1st opposite party. Under request from the CSIR the branch would make a debit entry in the S.E.R.C. account and credit the pension in the complainant’s account. The complainant has been withdrawing these amounts periodically. He has been operating the above pension account from 2001 onwards without any grievances. In the meanwhile he has shifted his residents from Chennai to Tirunelveli and opened an account at State Bank of India, Tirunelveli Town Branch. In the month of March this opposite party received the letter allowing the bank to debit the pension amount of the complainant and credit the same in the complainant’s new account at Tirunelveli. At that time the State Bank of India has also opted to shift the branch wise operations into the new Centralized operation and introduced the new core banking system in all the branches in important cities including those at Chennai, Trichy and Tirunelveli. The 1st opposite party bank also migrated to this core banking solution platform only on 28-5-2006 and normally it takes 3 to 6 months for the operations to stabilize in the core banking software. These branches were also undergoing system difficulties during the initial months of operations of the C.B.S. and were also at Adayar Branch. The branches at Adayar and other branches besides attending on the usual day to day banking operations and administration has been carrying on the works for the above system changing without causing any hardships to the customers. The 1st opposite party has sent the complainant’s pension paper with necessary advice to the Tirunelveli Town Branch on 20-6-2006. The monthly pension amount of the complainant’s due from June, 2006 onwards has been duly credited in his Tirunelveli Town Branch account and the complainant has withdrawn those amounts forthwith. There was no delay for the complainant to withdraw his pension amount from June 2006 onwards. The amounts for March April and May 2006 were credited at his Adayar Branch account. The complainant was permitted and entitled to withdraw any amount at Adayar Branch or Trichy Branch or Tirunelveli Branch from anywhere in these places under the New Core System. He can operate his Adayar Branch account residing at Tirunelveli itself and he can thus withdraw the amounts from the account at Adayar. The complainant had also deposited three cheques in his name on 18-7-2006 and on 7-7-2006 and he has withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from his account at Tirunelveli Town Branch in spite of the wrong transfer entry to Trichy Town Branch. These factors establish that there was no delay or deficiency caused to him by the respondents branches. Hence the allegation that the respondents have caused deficiency of service for withdrawing his pension amount is false. The transfer of account from one branch to another will not cause and has not caused any loss of interest to the account hence there is no loss of any interest for the complainant. The complainant has conveniently and without any delay or loss has been operating his pension account at Tirunelveli Town Branch receiving the pension amounts from June 2006. The Home branch has been properly changed from Adayar branch to Tirunelveli Town branch in August 2006. The complainant has suppressed these facts though he has filed this complaint only in March 2007. The complainant has not stated about the loss of interest if any from which period to which period. The core banking system will not cause any loss to the account as it comes under one centralized account. The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Adayar has also sent a personal letter to the complainant even for this erroneous change in the code no. i.e. naming Trichy Town in stead of Tirunelveli Town and regretted very much for the above inconvenience, though no delay in withdrawal and no loss of interest is caused to the complainant. Immediately after the complainant has brought to the knowledge of the opposite party Adayar Branch about the mistaken entry of Trichy Town instead of Tirunelveli Town, it was corrected and duly informed to the complainant. No part of cause of action arose at Tirunelveli Town for filing the above consumer case before this Forum. The complainant has added 4th opposite party though no cause of action or part of cause of action or grievance arose at Tirunelveli Town. In the notice dated 3-8-2006 the Tirunelveli Town Branch was not impleaded or addressed. The cause of action noted in the complaint related to 1st opposite party. The complainant’s residence at Tirunelveli Town will not give the cause of action or enable him to file this case at Tirunelveli. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    3) The points for considerations are;

    1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so;

    2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    4) Points: To prove the case of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the letter given by the complainant to his employer, Director, SCRI Chennai for transfer his pension account from Chennai to Tirunelveli. Ex.A2 is the letter from his employer to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A3 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ex.A4 is the reply received from the 1st opposite party. Ex.A5 is the extract of savings account of the complainant with 4th opposite party. On the side of the opposite parties, proof affidavit of 2nd opposite party was filed and no documents were marked. The case of the complainant is that he worked at CSIR Tharamani, Chennai and retired during the year 2000 and was residing at Chennai and getting the pension amount through the 1st opposite party. Subsequently he shifted his residence from Chennai to Tirunelveli and opened an account with 4th opposite party and he sent a letter of request to the 1st opposite party and his employer to transfer his savings account from 1st opposite party to 4th opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that instead of transferring the account to Tirunelveli Town Branch the 1st opposite party had transferred his account to Trichy Town Branch and with the result he could not get pension in time and there were loss of interest also. On the other side opposite parties admitted that the complainant had a savings account at 1st opposite party and opened a new account at 4th opposite party and gave a letter for transfer of his account from 1st opposite party to 4th opposite party. When the complainant sent a letter the State Bank of India branches have opted to their his branch wise operations into new centralized operation and introduced the new core banking system in all the branches in important cities including those at Chennai, Trichy and Tirunelveli and these branches were undergoing system difficulties during the initial month of operations. The 1st opposite party has also migrated to this core banking solution plat form and it takes 3 to 6 months to complete this system and besides attending to the usual day to day banking operations the above works was carried on without causing any hardships to the customers. When the system was introduced the complainant was enable to withdraw any amount at Adayar Branch or Trichy Branch or Tirunelveli Branch from any where by operating from any place. Complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to transfer his saving account from 1st opposite party to 4th opposite party. The opposite parties have contended that during August 2006 the savings account of the complainant had already been transferred to the Tirunelveli Town Branch and from June 2006 he is operating and withdrawing pension amount at Tirunelveli Town Branch. Since the new core banking system was under introduction from March 2006 to May 2006 the savings account of the complainant could not be transferred from 1st opposite party to 4th opposite party because of the administrative reasons. No hardships was caused to the complainant because of the above changing of system and the complainant was permitted to operate his account with the 1st opposite party from Tirunelveli itself and he had drawn his pension amount for the month of March, April and May also without any delay which would show that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

    5) The opposite parties have admitted that instead of transferring the complainant’s savings account to Tirunelveli Town Branch by mistake they have transferred it to the Trichy Town Branch and immediately after it was brought to their knowledge they have rectified the mistake and transferred the account to Tirunelveli Town Branch. The reasons stated that the above mistake was explained by them with sound reasoning even though complainant would contend that there is loss of interest for him he had not stated for what period and how much amount is lost towards interest for the period from March 2006 to June 2006. Even though the complainant’s account was not transferred to the Tirunelveli Town Branch he had operated his account from Tirunelveli and received the pension amount. This would show that no hardships was caused to the complainant and no loss of amount was also there. Counsel for the opposite party argued that no cause of action has been made against 4th opposite party and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The jurisdiction of this Forum under the act is where the opposite party resides and not the complainant resides. No complaint or grievances or deficiency of service has been attributed against the 4th opposite party. The relief asked for by the complainant is against 1st to 3rd opposite parties only. The residence of the complainant at Tirunelveli does not enable him to file this complaint before this Forum as no part of cause of action arose at Tirunelveli. Complainant has stated no grievances against the 4th opposite party and impleaded the 4th opposite party only as a formal party.

    6) The counsel for the opposite parties relied upon a citation in IV (2005) CPJ Page 259 wherein it has been stated that merely because application sent from one place could not be said that part of cause of action arose at that place, and because letter of request was sent to the 1st opposite party and his employer to transfer complainant’s account from 1st opposite party to the 4th opposite party from Tirunelveli, it would not confer territorial jurisdiction to file this complaint before this Forum and argued it would not confer any territorial jurisdiction to file this complaint before this Forum. Since no part of cause of action arose at Tirunelveli as rightly argued for the counsel for the opposite parties this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

    7) In the circumstances stated above by transferring the complainant’s account from 1st opposite party to Trichy Town Branch no hardship was caused to the complainant and no loss was also made as alleged by the complainant. The relief asked for by the complainant to transfer his account from 1st opposite party to 4th opposite party had already been met out. In the circumstances stated above we hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and we also hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties causing mental agony and loss to the complainant and we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as asked for. We answer this point accordingly.

    In the result the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

    Dictated to the Steno-typist taken and typed by him and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of December 2009.

  3. #108
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:73/2006.

    T.P.S.A.Delhi Ram,

    Proprietor,

    Manikandan Trading Company,

    Mukkudal.

    Tirunelveli District. …Complainant.
    ..vs..
    The Branch Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Ambasamudram Branch,

    Ambasamudram,

    Tiruenlveli District. … Opposite party.

    This complaint came before us for final hearing on 23-11-2009 in the presence of Thiru S.Skanda Raja, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru S.Shenbagam, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:
    ORDER
    This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

    1) The averments of the complainant in the complaint are briefly as follows: The complainant is doing business under the name and style of Manikandan Trading Company at Mukkudal. He started a current account with the opposite party in connection with his business in C.A. No.89110. After computersation of the opposite party bank the current account of the complainant was renumbered as 01050065024. On account of the operation of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act the complainant firm is registered with the Commercial Tax Department of the State of Tamil Nadu in R.C.No.5620748/01-02. The complainant’s firm was assessed by the Commercial Tax Department for the financial year ending March 2002 and he was directed to pay Rs.21,818/- as commercial tax. On 1-4-2002 the complainant had in his credit a balance of Rs.57924.50 in his current account. In addition to the said balance the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- on 10-4-2002. After depositing the said amount the existing balance as on 10-4-2002 is Rs.57,924.50. The complainant issued cheque bearing NO.760352 for Rs.21,818/- drawn in the opposite party bank in favour of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram towards payment of the commercial tax. The commercial tax department who are also having in account with the opposite party bank deposited the above cheque for collection on 10-4-2002 itself. The complainant was under bonafide impression that the opposite party would have honoured the said cheque immediately on presentation of the same since there were sufficient funds in his account as on 10-4-2002. But to his surprise he received a notice from the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram on 29-5-2006 stating that the cheque stated above was not honoured by the opposite party and the amount due on the self cheque was transferred to the account of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram only on 11-6-2002 after a period of two months. The opposite party had no legal authority to with hold or delays the payment on the said cheque. The act of the opposite party in delaying the payment for the cheque even though there was sufficient funds in the complainant’s account to honour it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Because of the delay caused by the opposite party in transferring the amount to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram from the complainant’s account, the Commercial Tax Department have levied a penalty of 2% under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax which was calculated at Rs.581. The opposite party was only responsible for levying the penalty on the complainant by the commercial tax department. On account of the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party the complainant’s reputation in the Commercial Tax Officer at Ambasamudram was spoiled without any fault on his side. More over he was also unnecessarily compelled to pay penal interest of Rs.581/-. This caused mental agony to the complainant. So complainant sent a notice to the opposite party to pay Rs.25,581/- towards damages caused by the complainant and penal interest paid by him together with unconditional written apology for not honouring the cheque in spite of sufficient funds in his accounts. The opposite party received a notice on 8-7-2006 but failed to pay the compensation amount as asked for nor did he sent any reply. Hence the complainant was compelled to file this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,581/- towards compensation for the damages and penal interest paid by him and to pay cost of this proceedings.

    2) The averment in the counter are as follows: The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant is proprietor of Manikandan Trading Company and operating the current account with the opposite party for his business and commercial activities. If the banking services availed for commercial activities and purposes, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. And the burden lies on him are to prove that he is a consumer. It is wrong to say that on 1-4-2002 a sum of Rs.57,924.50 was in the credit of the complainant. On 19-3-2002 after withdrawal under challan No.760351 DCTO a sum of Rs.7233/-, a balance amount available in his account was only Rs.51,251.30. The balance continues till 9-4-2002 as there was no transaction in between these periods. On 10-4-2002 complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- and the total amount available in his account is Rs.71,251.30 on that day the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.50,100/- and it was encashed and the remaining balance amount available in his account was Rs.21,151.30 only. A cheque bearing No.00760352 dated 10-4-2002 for Rs.21,818/- in favour of DCTO Ambasamudram was presented by DCTO through their regular mode of presentation. The cheque would not have been honoured as the amount sought to be drawn therein, exceeds the credit balance. Hence the averments that the complainant was under the bonafide intention that those two cheques would have been honoured are baseless and false. The above cheque was not honoured for want of sufficient funds. Knowing very well that the balance in his account was sufficient to meet the cheque in favour of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram an amount of Rs.12,000/- was thereafter remitted on 10-6-2002, thus making his account to have a credit balance of Rs.33,402.30. When the above cheque No.00760352 for Rs.21,818/- was again represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram on 11-6-2002 it was honoured. Thus it is clear from the above that the cheque for Rs.21,818/- could not be honoured for want of sufficient funds. The opposite party was never negligent nor having any intention of putting its customer in an embarrassing situation. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service for the transaction alleged to have been taken in April 2002 that is after four years which is barred by limitation. More over operating a current account with the opposite party the complainant is liable to keep a minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in his account. If this fact is taken into account and enforced by the bank, the minimum balance in the above account as on 10-4-2002 after satisfying the earlier presented cheque for Rs.50,100/- would be only Rs.11,151.30 and not Rs.21,151.30. As such this complaint is not sustainable before this Forum. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    3) The points for considerations are;

    1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and if so;

    2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    4) Points: The case of the complainant is that for his business purpose he has opened a current account with the opposite party on 10-4-2002 in C.A.No.81110 and on 1-4-2002 the balance amount in his account was Rs.77,924.30 and on 10-4-2002 he deposited Rs.20,000/- and after depositing the above amount the balance amount in his credit was Rs.57,924.30. He issued a cheque bearing No.760352 for Rs.21,818/- in favour of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram towards payment of commercial tax and the Commercial Tax Officer Ambasamudram who is having account with the opposite party deposited the said cheque for collection on 10-4-2002 itself. The complainant was shocked after receiving a notice from the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram that the above cheque was not honoured and the amount was released only on 11-6-2002 after a period of two months. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram levied penal interest for the late payment of the commercial tax which caused mental agony to the complainant. The case of the opposite party is that on 10-4-2002 after deposit of Rs.20,000/- the total amount available in the complainant’s account was Rs.71851.30 and on that date one cheque given by the complainant for Rs.50,100/- was honoured and the remaining balance amount was Rs.2151.30 only. Since the amount mentioned in cheque No.00760352 exceeded this amount, the cheque would not be honoured and it was returned to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram. On 10-6-2002 the complainant deposited Rs.12,000/- and this enhancing the amount in his credit was Rs.33,402.30. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram represented the above cheque on 11-6-2002 and it was honoured. So the reason for dishonoring the cheque presented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram is on that date, that is on 10-4-2002 the complainant was not having sufficient funds in his account, it is alleged by the opposite party.

    5) To prove the case of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. Ex.A1 is the letter received from the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram by the complainant and Ex.A2 is the receipt for payment of Rs.581/- and Ex.A3 is the letter from the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram to the complainant. Ex.A4 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party and Ex.A5 is the acknowledgement card. Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are counterfoil of cheque leaves issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and Ex.A9 is the statement of transaction of the current account of the complainant with the opposite party.

    6) On the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed and Ex.B1account copy relating to the complainant was marked. On perusal of Ex.B1 after deducting the amount for cheque No.760351 on 19-3-2002 there is a credit of Rs.51251.30 only is the account of the complainant. On 10-4-2002 the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- which raises his credit amount to Rs.71851.30. On 10-4-2002 complainant issued a cheque No.760353 for Rs.50100/- and after paying the above amount the amount in the complainant’s account was Rs.21,151.30. The counsel for the opposite party would contend since the amount in the account of the complainant was only Rs.21,151.30 the cheque given by him to Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram for Rs.21,818 could not be honoured and it was returned with endorsement as insufficient funds and subsequently the cheque was honoured on 11-6-2002 when it was represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram since the complainant had deposited Rs.12,000/- on 10-6-2002. The counsel for the complainant argued that notice had been given to the opposite party on 31-1-2007 to produce the statement of account of the complainant from 10-4-2002 to 10-6-2002. But they did not produce any account till the complainant filed his proof affidavit and statement of account for the above period was filed by him before this Forum on 14-3-2007. After that the opposite party had filed the statement of account of the complainant under Ex.B1 for the period from 12-3-2002 to 29-3-2004. They have not given any reason for not producing the account from 10-4-2002 to 13-3-2002 since the above periods account is crucial for determination of this case. According to the complainant after paying the amount for cheque No.760351 these would be a balance of Rs.51,927.30 in his account. But the account produced by the opposite party shows a balance of Rs.51,751.30, thus there is a difference of Rs.6673/- between the account of the complainant and the opposite party. This difference has occurred prior to the period 12-3-2002. So to decide who is responsible for this difference as to whether the complainant or the opposite party has to be decided by comparing the accounts of both the complainant and the opposite party from 10-4-2000 when the account was started till the disputed period. Unless the opposite party produces the account for the period prior to 12-3-2002 up to the date of opening of the account the dispute cannot be decided. Hence the opposite party has wantonly suppressed the account prior to 12-3-2002, further argued by the complainant’s counsel.

    7) The entry in the account of the opposite party in Ex.B1 dated 13-3-2003 shows that Rs.6623/- was credited to the account of the complainant under cheque No.359399 from these date the difference of account of the complainant and the opposite party has disappeared. The counsel for the complainant argued that cheque No.359399 which is related to account No.65061 was not produced by the complainant for collection and that cheque is not related to his account in any manner. The opposite party had added this amount in the account of the complainant because he had omitted in the past this amount to be added in his account by mistake and subsequently added this amount as if it was credited in his account by a cheque. He further argued that complainant had no connection with the above cheque and the above cheque was not presented for collection by him and, if the cheque was produced by the opposite party it would enlighten this Forum whether the cheque was presented by him or not. The opposite party had wantonly suppressed the true account of the complainant and in order to rectify the defects they have added this amount in to the complainant’s account as if the above cheque had been presented by the complainant. When the complainant denies that he had not presented the above cheque for collection, it is for the opposite party to prove it by producing the above cheque. Since the amount added into the complainant’s account is Rs.6673/- the difference between Ex.A9 and Ex.B1 as alleged by the complainant’s side counsel we hold that the opposite party had wantonly suppressed the account prior to 12-3-2002. This shows that the statement of account produced by the opposite party is not the real account of the complainant. Ex.B9 is supported by the counterfoil of the cheques issued by the complainant and counterfoil of the credit challans under Ex.A6 to Ex.A8, the difference of amount as on 10-4-2002 between Ex.A9 and Ex.B1 is Rs.6673/- only. This amount was credited into the complainant’s account subsequently as if it was credited under a cheque. When the complainant denies that he had no connection with the above cheque it was for the opposite party to prove that the complainant had presented the above cheque for collection. The counsel for the complainant argued that opposite party had added this amount into the account of the complainant which was omitted by them by mistake in the account of the complainant, as if this amount was credited in his account subsequently by a cheque. Since statement of account for the period prior to 12-3-2002 was not produced we hold that there is force in the argument of the complainant’s side counsel. Hence we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not properly maintaining the account of the complainant and not honouring the cheque issued by him when there was sufficient funds in his account which caused mental agony to the complainant.

    8) The counsel for the opposite party would contend that this complaint is regarding the transaction in 2002 and the complainant has filed this complaint only in 2006 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is barred by limitation. Counsel for the complainant would argue that under Ex.A1 complainant came to know that a cheque was dishonoured only on 29-5-2006 and subsequently he got a letter from Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram dated 23-6-2006 regarding the return of the cheque on 10-4-2002 and the amount on the above cheque was collected only on 11-6-2002 after a period of two months. Since complainant came to know the return of the cheque only during May 2006 and cause of action would arose only from that date and the complaint is not time barred as argued by the opposite party side counsel. We hold that in the circumstances stated above since the complainant came to know regarding the return of cheque only during May 2006 this complaint is not barred by limitation.

    9) The citations submitted by the opposite party counsel 2009 (3) L.W. page 185, 2006 SCAR Civil page 8, 2002 SCAR Civil page 800 are not applicable to the facts of this case. The citation produced by the opposite party side in 2009 SCAR Civil page 788 is also not applicable to this case since the complainant is the sole proprietor of the Manikandan Trading Company.

    10) In the circumstances stated above we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as asked for. We answer this point accordingly.

    11) In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.581/- towards the penal interest paid by the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    Dictated to the Steno-typist, taken and typed by him and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of December 2009.

  4. #109
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default State Bank of India

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/274
    Bhaskar Sanyal & Sucheta Sanyal
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    The Manager, S.B.I. Credit Card
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:
    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.



    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 274 / 2009



    1) Sri Bhaskar Sanyal and

    2) Smt. Sucheta Sanyal

    Both of

    R-37, Teghoria Main Road,

    Kolkata-700059. ---------- Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) The Manager, S.B.I. Credit Card,

    234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20. ---------- Opposite Party

    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member

    Order No. 7 Dated 2 5 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 .

    Complainants Bhaskar Sanyal & his wife Sucheta Sanyal by filing a Petition of Complaint on 22.07.2009 have prayed for issuing directions upon the O.P.s Manager, SBI Credit Cards to produce the detailed statements justifying their claims and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 and Litigation Cost of Rs. 2,000.00.

    Petitioner No. 1 purchased a Credit Card being No. 4317-5752-0989-7405 for Card value of Rs. 36,000.00 and the Petitioner No. 2 also thereafter purchased another Card being No. 4317-5752-0920-0766 of Rs. 36,000.00. Both the Cards were issued by the O.P. In August, 2008. O.P. sent statement for the month of July claiming Rs. 35,013.37P most illegally. Yet the said amount was paid to the O.P. on 28.08.2008. The Petitioner further requested the O.P. in the month of September, 2008 to issue monthly statements from January to May and August and September, 2008 and in the last week of September, 2008 the Petitioners received a bill of Rs. 4,685.57P without any basis. The Petitioners paid Rs. 2,000.00 in the month of September, 2008 and the Petitioners credited an amount of Rs. 5,888.47P in the month of September, 2008 as shown in the bill dated 05.10.2008. Further in the month of October, 2008 the Petitioner received a bill of Rs. 9,930.41P without any basis. From their credited amount of Rs. 5,888.47P the Petitioner debited Rs. 2,000.00, so the balance due should be in September, 2008 Rs.8,574.04P whereas in the bill of October, 2008 the total due is shown as Rs. 9,930.41P. The Petitioner did not receive any bill from November, 2008. The Petitioners from October, 2008 till June, 2008 credited Rs. 4,358.00P. In this way the O.P. has been sending statements claiming total dues of Rs. 14,288.41P instead of Rs. 12,932.04P.

    Bank statements, even in spite of repeated requests by the Petitioners, were never sent to the Petitioners.

    The different employees of the O.P. over telephone in rough approach have been asking the Petitioners to make payments for more than Rs. 13,000.00 although the Petitioners have requested them to send the monthly statements from January, 2008 to May, 2008 and November, 2008 to June, 2009. The Petitioners received a telephonic call from the office of the O.P. on 13.07.09 demanding to pay

    Rs. 14,826.00 immediately, otherwise they will send their collection agents/musclemen to recover the amount of money. Out of fear the Petitioners paid Rs. 2,000.00 on 13.07.2009. The demand of the O.P. is highly illegal and baseless. So the Petitioner has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

    Decision with reasons:-

    It appears on perusal of record that the O.P. received a notice and initially 20.10.2009 was fixed for filing WV, but as the O.P. remained absent without any step the date of ex parte hearing was fixed on 20.10.2009 .

    It appears from Annexure-A wherein the Petitioner has informed the Manager, Customer Service, SBI Cards that from January, 2008 he did not receive any monthly statements. It appears from Annexure-B that the O.P. illegally claimed Rs. 35,103.37P and it appears from Annexure-C that the Petitioner Bhaskar Sanyal paid the said amount of money to the O.P. on 28.08.2008. The Petitioner also requested by sending a letter, Annexure-D dated 09.09.2008 to send the monthly statement of August, 2008 and September, 2008 within 7 days of receipt of his letter. The Petitioner received a bill of Rs. 4,686.97P vide Annexure-E. The Petitioner paid Rs. 2,000.00 vide Annexure-F and also credited an amount of Rs. 5,888.47P (in the way by making payment of Rs. 1,500.00 + Rs. 1,000.00 + Rs.500.00 + Rs. 2,888.47P = Rs. 5,999.47P), but the O.P. claimed Rs. 9,930.41P as available from Annexure-G. From October to June the Petitioner also paid Rs. 9,000.00 vide Annexure-H collectively.
    He again reiterated his demand for sending regular bill from January, 2008 to May, 2008 which is available from his letter dated 13.04.2009 Annexure-I. The Petitioner out of threat, according to him, further paid Rs. 2,000.00 vide Annexure-J.

    We have also perused the Evidence on Affidavit of the Petitioner wherein he has stated all about his payments on different dates and he has also mentioned the illegal demand of money by the O.P. and he has also mentioned therein that even in spite of his repeated demand the O.P. did not send him monthly statements regularly.

    Therefore, considering the facts & circumstances, evidence on record, both oral and documentary there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the Petitioners. And accordingly, we hold that the Petition of Complaint should be allowed on merit. And we further hold that the O.P. has committed Unfair Trade Practice by charging excessive and illegal amount of bills.
    Hence,

    ordered

    that the Petition of Complaint is allowed ex parte with cost against the O.P. And the O.P. is directed to send regularly bills from November, 2008 to June, 2009 positively within 45 days from the date of receipt of the Order. The O.P. is also directed to give compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 to the Petitioner positively within 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which it will carry interest @ 10% per annum till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

    Supply Certified Copy of this Order to the Complainant on payment of prescribed fees.

  5. #110
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default State Bank of India

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/208

    The Director, Consumer Affairs & fair Business Practices
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    M/s SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. and 2 others
    ...........Respondent(s)


    BEFORE:


    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.


    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 208 / 2007

    1) The Director,

    Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 6th Floor,

    Kolkata-700087. ---------- Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) M/s. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.

    F.M.C. Fortuna Buildings,

    234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road,

    Kolkata-700020, P.S. Bhawanipur.

    2) M/s. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,

    90-A, Udyog Vihar, Sector-18,

    Gurgaon, Haryana-122015.

    3) M/s. State Bank of India,

    1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Party

    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.
    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member

    Order No. 2 6 Dated 1 5 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 .

    On the basis of authorization issued by joint Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal dt.14.6.07 the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Govt. of West Bengal has filed the instant petition of complaint u/s 12(i)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the SBI Card and Payment Services o.p. no.1, SBI Card and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. o.p. no.2 and M/s State Bank of India o.p. no.3 praying for issuing order/direction upon the o.ps., (a) to produce or cause to be produced all records pertaining to credit card issued during the last three years to ascertain the actual amount of earning made by unfair trade practice u/s 13(4)(ii)(vi) of the C.P. Act read with Rule 10 of the C.P. Rules, 1987, (b) to pass an interim order u/s 13(3)(B) of the Act directing the o.p. nos.1 and 2 to stop issue of new credit cards and raising bills in respect of old credit cards in dispute till the disposal of this application or strict enforcement of the clause 6(b) of Reserve Bank of India guidelines dt.20.11.05 whichever is earlier and o.p. no.1 M/s SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. may be directed to arrange issuing instantaneous acknowledgement in respect of surrender of credit cards and/or in sorts of correspondence immediately and (c) o.ps. may directed to pay Rs.20 lakhs as compensation u/s 14(i)(d) of the Act for the loss suffered both mental and monetarily by numerous consumer in general and the complainant will deposit the amount of compensation to the State Consumer Welfare Fund and utilize the same for the purpose of protection and welfare of the consumers as per relevant rule and (d) for litigation cost. On the basis of 18 numbers of petitions of complaint addressed to the Director, CA & FBP, 8B, Lindsey Street, 6th floor, Kolkata-87, the complainant has filed the instant case with the aforesaid prayer.

    It is specific prayer of the complainant viz. the Director of CA & FBP, Govt. of West Bengal that 18 credit card holders filed their individual complaint praying for redress against the deficiency in service of the o.ps. and accordingly, they requested the intervention of the complainant, so that the disputes can be amicably settled through mediatory process which is undertaken by the Director of CA & FBP. According to the complainant the allegations are serious in nature and disregardful to the guidelines for implementing credit card operation as circulated by Reserve Bank of India. Astonishing to note that a team of officers of the complainants’ office for the august purpose of amicable settlement wanted to visit the office of the o.p. no.1 for preliminary inquiry, but they were denied entry into the office. It was brought to the notice of the Regional Director, Division of Banking and Development, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata, but the o.ps. did not pay any heed to Secretary’s query on the disputes under reference. Further, office of the banking ombudsmen also received various complaints, but even then the o.ps. did not pay any heed to mitigate the grievances of the consumers.

    The allegations involved are not only fictitious, imposition of unjust billing and charges, issuance of unsolicited cards and insurance policy, irregular sending of bill resulting expiry of due date and other complications, but also sending application of humiliating nature comprising of intimidation, harassment to the card holders and their family members.

    Although the 18 card holders who made complaint to the complainant is microscopic in number compared to the vast unidentifiable consumers, but for the interest of large number of consumers who are suffering a lot with regard to deficiency of service of the o.ps. should be redressed properly by this forum and for the purpose the case is filed practically in a representative manner by the complainant. Moreover, the system of cancellation of SBI Credit Card does not confirm to the spirit of terms and conditions prescribed as per rules causing tremendous mental and monitory loss to the card holders.

    It is very much important and striking to note that o.p. nos. 1 and 2 use the common logo of India’s larges commercial bank, viz. State Bank of India and definitely State Bank of India is to shoulder the responsibility of adoption of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service as committed by the o.p. nos.1 and 2 and by allowing to use such logo of SBI oo.p. nos.1 and 2 unscrupulously enjoy the status of beneficiary with respect to business activities of the SBI. In view of this background of this allegation they have filed this case with the aforesaid prayer.

    It appears on perusal of the record vide order no.4 dt.12.9.07 that o.p. no.3 appeared and an order was passed by this forum on an application of interim order restraining the o.ps. to initiate any action of recovery of disputed bills, issuance of unsolicited cards, grant of unsolicited loans, adoption of coercive measures of recovery debts etc. and on hearing the complainant and o.p. no.3 an interim order was passed restraining the o.p. no.3 as prayed for by the complainant. It further appears from order no.7 dt.12.10.07 that the o.p. no.1 filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case in its present form and law and the forum held on the basis of prima facie case the present petition of complaint is maintainable in its present form and law. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for filing their w/vs, but as they took so many times to file w/v, their prayer was rejected vide order no.9 dt.20.12.07 and 5.2.07. The o.p. no.3 not only filed w/v, but they also filed their written notes of argument. But ultimately o.p. nos.1 and 2 were allowed to file w/v on payment of cost of Rs.2000/- vide order no.12 ft.24.4.08.

    O.p. nos.1 and 2 on 25.3.08 had filed their w/v. They have denied all the material allegations against them including unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. They have categorically stated that they are engaged in the business of extending credit card and facilities and in this regard they have earned good will and reputation and they strictly follow the terms of the guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India with regard to code of conduct. The customers also consciously decide if they wish to avail the insurance of “SBI Card Protection Plus” with regard to billing payment, interest on late payment, credit and cash limit, mode of payment, sending of statement and information regarding fees and charges they follow the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Each and every bill provides and schedule of charge which is explanatory. Even bill disputes resolution mechanism are also provided and stated in each and every bill provided to the customers. They also provide SBI helpline with an interactive voice response (IVR) to the customers.

    They have also given the separate reply with regard to the allegations complaint by 18 customers before the complainant. The complainant is really and abuse of the process of the court and appears to be and to harass unnecessarily the o.p. nos.1 and 2. The petition of complaint is defamatory and accordingly, the petition of complaint should be dismissed with compensatory cost.

    The o.p. nos.3 on 20.12.07 filed their written statement. They have denied all the material allegations against them. Their case is that SBI Cards and payment Services Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1953 and the SBI is a banking corporation incorporated under the State Bank India Act, 1955. State Bank of India has 60% stake of SBI Cards and remaining 40% is owned by General Electric Corporation. SBI Card is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association and has been permitted to use the name and logo of State Bank of India for business purpose and the day to day affairs of the card business is handled exclusively by SBI Cards.

    With regard to deficiency of service they have clearly and in unequivocal terms have categorically stated that with regard to credit card they are not at all concerned because they do not issue such credit cards, so they are not supposed to provide any service for the credit card, so the onus of rendering service with regard to credit card and charging of excess interest etc. cannot lie upon them. The credit cards are not the cheques/drafts and so the credit card holders are not also the customers of the State Bank of India. Accordingly, they have claimed that impleading the name of State Bank of India is a matter of classic example of misjoinder of parties and so their name may kindly be expunged from the record.

    Decision with reasons :-

    We have perused annex-A containing the petitions filed to the complainant by 18 consumers alleging the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the o.ps. Annex-E speaks of the nature of complaint submitted by 18 consumers. It involves the question of undue charging of interest, charging of premium on unsolicited insurance, unsolicited loan, threatening for payment against loan, irregular debit to account, charging of interest, even after surrender of card fraudulent transaction, even after destruction of card, non settlement of disputes, even after payment of demand amount charging of annual fees, even after expiry of card, non updating after payment using of force for accepting card, sending unsolicited draft, irregular sending of bills for resulting interest on delayed payment, sending of bill showing outstanding even after full payment, illegal blocking of credit card, harassment and threatening to the card holders and family members, sending of ambiguous balance statement, inflicting mental torture, sending of inflated bills, non fulfillment of promise for giving gift vouchers, demand of false dues, obstruction in initiating criminal procedure in the matter of acknowledgement of draft, refusal of receiving cheque even after production of documents etc.

    We have perused all the 18 petitions filed by different consumers to the Director of CA & FBP and the main allegations of all of them involve the question of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the o.p. nos.1 and 2 using the name of o.p. no.3 State Bank of India.

    We have also perused the annexures filed from the side of the o.ps. including he terms and conditions of credit cards and payments. We have also perused the letter given from the side of o.p. nos.1 and 2 to the customers who made their complaint before the complainant. We have also perused the application form and declaration form of different customers and the balance transfer statement. On perusal of all those documents it appears to us that those customers had transaction with the o.p. nos.1 and 2 with regard to SBI Cards and Payments Services. The allegations of those 18 customers with regard to SBI Cards and Payment Services is numerous in nature, but only having one uniformity that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by o.p. nos.1 and 2 using the logo of State Bank of India o.p. no.3. and this is the main point of our discussion which we like to deal with in details. In view of this position, the involvement of o.p. no.3 State Bank of India definitely takes an important position in our discussion.

    State Bank of India which was originally Imperial Bank is perhaps oldest commercial bank in our country. State Bank of India as it appears from various reports has not only achieved commendable success, but also definitely renders banking service not only in metropolitan towns, but also even to remote corner of the villages of India. So in a word their service is very much extensive. So, it is not at all expected that under the umbrella of State Bank of India other commercial banks or financial institutions will enjoy unlawful gain from the consumers. It not only hampers the goodwill of State Bank of India, but at the same time it reaps the seed of suspicion raising the question of sincerity and integrity of State Bank of India which is not at all desirable. It is not understood that commanding colossal success in respect of rendering true banking service to the customers how they allow the SBI Cards and Payment Services to use their logo. The explanation given in the written statement submitted by the SBI o.p. no.3 that “SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1953. SBI is a banking corporation incorporated under the State Bank of India Act,1955. State Bank of India has 60% stake of SBI Cards and the remaining 40% is owned by General Electric Corporation through its investment arm GE Consumer (Mauritius) Investment I Ltd. SBI is governed by its memorandum and articles of association and has been permitted to use the name of logo of SBI for business purpose. The day to day affairs of card business is further handled exclusively by SBI Cards”.

    It is also reflected in their written argument filed on 20.4.09. It is true that it is the domestic arrangement between the State Bank of India and SBI Card and Payments. It has also been stated in paragraph 4 of the written argument which runs as As regards use of logo and part of the name of the SBI was permitted by SBI as a shareholder pursuant to the terms and conditions captured in the share holder’s agreement entered on 22.1.1998 in between the SBI and General Electric Capital Corporation. In paragraph 8 they have stated that the use of logo and name by other corporate entities is either permissive and/or passed on contract. In this case, SBI has permitted to use its logo and name under the arrangement made in the contract. In paragraph they have stated that “SBI Card is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association and has been permitted to use and name to the logo of SBI for business purposes”. In view of this background of contract and the Memorandum and Articles of Association between State Bank of India in one side and SBI Card and Payments Services and some other organization on the other it is very much important to note that whatsoever may be the terms and contract between them; is not SBI aware of huge number of cases against the SBI Cards and Payment have been filed, pending and disposed of by different forums of India on the allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices alleged by the consumers ? Does it not cause disparagement of the good will and status of SBI before the public eyes at large? Is not the banking service based on trust and believe between the banking authorities and its concerned customers? Our common prudence speaks that SBI is aware of it. Further by a deep probe of the matter we are inclined to believe that as beneficiary of the State Bank of India, the SBI Card and Payment have been taking the advantage of Memorandum and Articles of Association and for their unlawful business purpose and commercial gain they have been using the logo and we are accordingly further of the opinion that in view of the huge number cases which we are having regularly against the SBI Card and Payment Services time has come that SBI is to give a second thought that whether they would allow the SBI Card and Payment to use their logo at the cost of disparagement of their status and good will. We are further of the opinion that if such practice is allowed to be continued for long period of time we are afraid that at all the SBI will be able to continue their goodwill and status in future. So, our question is that everything should be amenable to reasons - Can the Memorandum and Articles of Association as referred to above between SBI and other financial institution including the SBI Credit Cards and Payment be an exception ?

    We have perused the affidavit of examination on evidence of the complainant wherein they have stated that the statements made out in their petition of complaint and the annexures are true and correct. But the o.p. nos.1,2 and 3 have not filed any such affidavit on evidence.

    Now let us again reiterate the point of obligation of the SBI with regard to allegation and unfair trade practice by the o.p. nos.1 and 2. In this respect the statement of the complainant as reply to the w/o dt.20.12.07 of SBI o.p. no.3 is noteworthy. In paragraph 9 it is stated “the role of SBI in the instant point venture of credit card business may not be regulatory, but obviously participatory”. So, it appears to be obligatory on the part of the SBI to have a say against any kind of UTP being adopted by its associated companies in the matter of giving formal acknowledgement against the surrender of credit card on termination of membership. In absence of any specific rules of business in this regard the standard of acknowledging any monitory institution as prescribed by Reserve Bank of India for commercial banks may be adopted for consumer complaint and also to ensure fair trade in credit card business. Since they have financed any such business o.p. no.3 cannot sit idle. In view of an unfair trade being practiced by its associated companies viz. o.p. nos.1 and 2 in the interest of permission of their business at the cost of right of consumers in civil society. As such, o.p. no.3 cannot be expunged from the present proceedings. In view of this position it is needless to say all the commercial banks of India are statutorily governed and guided by the rules and regulations framed by Reserve Bank of India and in a democratic country like ours no civil society can tolerate such unfair trade practice committed buy SBI Credit Card and Payment Services under the coverage of Memorandum and Articles of Association and to use the logo of SBI for business purposes alone..

    We are unable to give individual relief to the 18 consumers who submitted their applications before the Director, CA & FBP because they have not filed applications u/s 12 of the C.P. Act before this forum. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, evidence on record filed on evidence and documentary, we are of the opinion that o.p. nos.1 and 2 are held liable for unfair trade practice. No substantial order relating to financial liability can be passed against SBI o.p. no.3, but at the same time we are constraint in view of our above observation to pass certain directions of caution to SBI for the protection and welfare of the consumers who are being victimized by o.p. nos.1 and 2 for their commercial purpose under the umbrella of SBI.

    Hence,

    Ordered,

    That the petition of complaint filed by the Director, CA & FBP, Govt. of West Bengal having its office at 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-87 is allowed on contest against o.p. nos.1 and 2 with costs and without costs against o.p. no.3.

    Complainant is awarded a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs) only and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only which must be deposited by o.p. nos.1 and 2 jointly or severally to the State Consumer Welfare Fund and to use the same for the purpose of protection and welfare of the indigent consumer as per rules. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the said cost of Rs.18,05,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs five thousand) only positively within forty five days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

    O.p. nos.3 State Bank of India, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata-1 is strongly directed to publish in the daily news paper in English, Bengali and Hindi and through electronic media with regard to their clear position, views and obligation with regard to using of logo by o.p. nos.1 and 2 with the customers. Interim order passed on 12.9.07 is hereby made absolute.

    Fees paid are correct.

    Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.

  6. #111
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/231

    Santosh Bhattacharya
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    SBI Card Officer, SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another
    ...........Respondent(s)

    BEFORE:

    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
    ORDER

    In the Court of the

    Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

    8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.



    CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 231 / 2008



    1) Sri Santosh Bhattacharya,

    1/A/2, Chandra Kumar Banerjee Lane,

    Howrah-711102. ---------- Complainant

    ---Verses---

    1) S B I Card Officer,

    S B I Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,

    234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20.

    2) S B I Card Officer,

    S B I Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,

    11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. ---------- Opposite Party



    Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

    Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member

    Order No. 1 7 Dated 0 8 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 .

    Complainant Santosh Bhattacharyya by filing a Petition of Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act on 16.07.2008 has prayed for issuing direction upon the O.Ps not to give any effect and/or further effecting and/or withdraw and/or cancel and/or rescind the fictitious bill in respect of any transaction with ICICI Bank Ltd., Howrah in the name of Sayak Bhattacharyya and to issue a fresh Primary Card in the name of Mr. S. Bhattacharyya and an additional card in the name of Mr. Sayak Bhattacharyya and to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac for non-issuance of fresh Primary Card in the name of Sayak Bhattacharyya and any further Order as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

    The fact of the case, in short, is that two Cards were issued by the O.P. NO. 1 in the name of the Complainant being Card No. 4317-5752-0973-3998 and another in the name of his son Mr. Sayak Bhattacharyya as additional card being No. 4317-5752-0529-4417. The card of S. Bhattacharyya was lost on 02.10.2007 and it was informed to the O.Ps and the O.P. blocked the card of S. Bhattacharyya on 10.10.2007. But surprisingly, the Complainant received one letter on 20.11.2007 from the O.Ps demanding an outstanding amount of Rs. 58,814.20 and also received one monthly statement for the card bearing No. 4317-5752-0975-6353 showing one transaction for Sayak Bhattacharyya. Add-on Card No. 4317-5752-0975-6379 was made on 05.11.2007 to ICICI Bank, Howrah. In a letter dated 26.11.2007 the O.Ps informed that they had made arrangements to re-issue Primary Card in the name of the Complainant and additional card in the name of Sayak Bhattacharyya and they will receive them very shortly. But when those cards were not receivced by the Complainant till 26.11.2007 the Complainant raised objection not to issue any additional card, but the O.Ps on 22.12.2007 sent another e-mail that the transaction was made by the additional card No. 4317-5752-0973-5084 and Complainant accordingly, raised objection and lodged complaint to Shibpur P.S. about the irregularities and harassment by the employees of the O.Ps. The Complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps with the aforesaid prayers.

    DECISION WITH REASONS :

    It appears on perusal of the records vide Orer No. 4 dated 21.12.2008 that the O.Ps received a notice, but none appeared and so the case was to be heard ex-parte.

    Further, it appears on perusal of Order NO. 6 dated 09.02.2009 that the O.Ps prayed for vacating the ex-parte hearing and prayed for time to file W/v. Their prayer was allowed. Ex-parte hearing was vacated and 19.03.2009 was fixed for filing WV. But on 19.03.2009 when the O.Ps remained absent without any step the case is heard ex-parte.

    The Complainant informed the loss of additional SBI Card No. 4317-5752-0529-4417 of his son Sayak Bhattacharyya to the O.Ps by his letter dated 08.10.2007 vide Annexure-A wherein he has also informed that he had already contacted their helpline and one Mr. Danesh assured him that he will block the card and issue new additional card and charges for the same will be Rs. 110.00.

    We have also perused the reply of the O.Ps, viz., Manager, Customer Service on the subject of loss of the additional card wherein they have stated that on the request of the Complainant they have blocked Card No. 4317-5752-0529-4417 on October 10, 2007 vide Annexure-2. We have also perused the Statement of Credit Card No. 4317-5752-0973-3998. It appears from a letter through e-mail to SBI Credit Card drawing the attention of Manager, Customer Service dated 14.11.2007 of the Complainant wherein the Complainant has expressed his grievances that instead of sending an Add-on Card in the name of Sayak Bhattacharyya the O.Ps have sent one card bearing No. 4317-5752-0973-3998 in the name of S. Bhattacharyya and as a result his Prime Card bearing No. 4317-5752-0529-4409 became invalid and in view of this position he had requested them to take appropriate steps.

    In their letter dated 20.11.2007 Annexure-5 the O.Ps have charged an outstanding amount of Rs. 58,814.20 from the Complainant, and in another letter dated 26.11.2007 they O.Ps have also assured the Complainant that an Add-on Card will be sent to Sayak Bhattacharyya very shortly. From the Statement dated 05.11.2007 it appears that the outstanding claim of the O.Ps stands to Rs. 58,510.OO; and it appears from Annexure-8 wherein the Complainant has categorically stated that at the relevant time he was not holding any additional card and it appeared a mystery to him that why this type of fictitious bill was sent to him and as such he was not going to pay any amount for this fictitious bill. We also find total outstanding claim to the figure of Rs. 59,921.93 for Card No. 4317-5752-0975-6353 vide Annexure-9. In his letter dated 05.02.2008 Complainant has informed his grievances to Mr. Ajay Bharti, Assistant Vide-President, Customer Service, SBI Cards where in he has clearly stated that there was some mistake in the records of the O.Ps and further the signature in the ICICI Bank Bill is not the signature of his son and two signatures are different. We have also perused his grievances submitted to Public Grievances Cell, Lal Bazar dated 16.10.2008 wherein he has stated all about the facts and sending fictitious bill and charging fictitious amount by the O.Ps. And it also appears from Annexure-11(ii) wherein they have advised the Complainant to lodge a Petition of Complainant to the Police Station within his local jurisdiction.

    And his Petition of Complaint to Officer-in-Charge, Shibpur Police Station is Annexure-12. We have also perused the reply of Shri Ajay Bharti, Assistant Vice President, Customer Service, SBI Cards wherein he has stated that his case is under investigation and they will inform him very shortly about the final settlement. We have also perused the Lawyer’s letter of the Complainant regarding the fictitious billing and withdrawal and cancellation of the same, Annexure-15. It is not understood that when the Credit Card of Sayak Bhattacharyya was blocked on 10.10.2007, and more particularly, when the O.P. did not re-issue the said card till 26.11.2007, how further transaction took place on 05.11.2007 through Card No. 4317-5752-0975-6379. We have already said that admitting their letter dated 10.10.2007 & 26.11.2007 stating therein that the said Card of Sayak Bhatacharyya was not in operation the O.P. cannot claim any amount from the Complainant. So the bills sent during that period, not only presumably but also definitely, can be taken as fictitious bill and the alleged transaction as claimed by the O.Ps is malafide and the drawing of bill during the period in question is fictitious.

    Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the Complainant is under no liability to pay any amount in the fictitious bills in question. We have also perused his Evidence on Oath and the contents of the same are corroborative in nature with regard to recitals made out in his Petition of Complaint. So, there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the Complainant.

    Hence, ordered that the Petition of Complaint is allowed ex parte against the O.Ps and the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are directed not to draw and send fictitious bill in respect of any transaction with ICICI Bank, Howrah in the name of Sayak Bhattacharyya and to issue a fresh Primary Card in the name of S. Bhattacharyya and an additional card in the name of Mr. Sayak Bhattacharyya. O.Ps are also directed to give compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this Order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% per annum on the grand total of Rs. 12,000.00 (Rupees Twelve Thousand) only till full realization of the amount.

  7. #112
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complt. Case No :1306 of 2009

    Date of Institution : 08.09.2009

    Date of Decision : 13.01.2010
    Smt.Daya Wanti wife of Late Sh.Surinder Nath, Resident of H.No.191, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh, aged about 77 years.

    ….…Complainant
    V E R S U S

    1] The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, PGI Branch, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

    .…..Opposite Party

    2] The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

    .…..Proforma O.P.

    CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

    DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

    Argued by: Sh.Rajinder Singh Raj, Adv. for complainant.

    Sh.Suresh Goyal, Adv. for OP No.1

    Sh.Gurjinder Singh, Clerk/Representative on behalf of OP No.2.

    PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

    As per the case, the husband of the complainant, namely, Sh.Surinder Nath was getting pension vide PP No.20418/PB from OP No.1 Bank and after his death on 20.1.2003, the complainant became entitled to get the pension as family pension. It is averred that the pension was revised by A.G. (Accounts & Entitlement), Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 18.10.2007 (Ann.C-1) w.e.f. 1.1.96 to 20.1.03, which was submitted to OP Bank on 10.12.2007 with a request to release the arrears of pension. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP Bank a number of times for getting the payment of arrears but to no avail and instead of that they again demanded the copy of letter dated 18.10.2007 on the pretext that the earlier copy has been misplaced. Then the complainant submitted another letter to OP Bank that she had attained the age of about 77 years and therefore, she be granted old age pension @5% on completion of age of 65 years and @10% w.e.f. 1.1.2007 on the completion of age of 75 years. However, no action was taken by them and ultimately a legal notice was sent on 25.8.2009, which was duly replied but no assurance was given as to when the payment would be released. Hence, this complaint has been instituted claiming the above act of OP as deficiency in service due to which the complainant had to suffer mentally, physically and financially.



    2] OP No.1 filed reply and admitted that late Sh.Surinder Nath, husband of complainant was getting pension from their bank. It is denied that the pension of the complainant was revised by A.G. Punjab vide letter dated 18.10.2007 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to 20.1.2003 as the same related to Proforma OP and not to OP Bank. It is denied that complainant ever submitted letter dated 18.10.2007 to OP Bank on 10.12.2007 as alleged, rather the same was submitted on 10.12.2008. It is also stated that the said letter was written by AG Punjab to Treasury Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is also admitted that the OP Bank had received two letters dated 25.5.2009 from complainant wherein she informed that the pension of her husband was revised by Punjab Government from 1.1.1996 to 20.1.2003 and after that the matter was taken up with T.O. Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 28.5.2009 for the payment of arrears and the T.O. Punjab vide letter dated 25.8.2009 (Ann.R-2) clarified and advised the OP Bank to release the payment of arrears of the pension of the husband of the complainant and immediately thereafter complainant was given credit of Rs.71,962/- on 3.9.2009 in her pension account and it was also informed to her vide Ann.R-3. The receipt of legal notice and its reply has been admitted. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint qua answering OP be dismissed.
    3] In their short reply filed by OP No.2, it is stated that OP No.2 was not at all responsible for any delay in releasing the arrears of family pension to the complainant as it was the responsibility of OP Bank only because the necessary papers of the retiree were sent to it from time to time. Denying any deficiency on their part, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

    4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

    5] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties, representative of OP No.2 and have perused the record.

    6] Annexure C-1 is the order dated 18.10.2007 issued by the Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh with a copy to the complainant regarding revision of her pension. It was specifically ordered that the amount shall be paid with effect from 1.1.1996 to 20.1.2003 to the legal heirs. The contention of the complainant is that she handed over a copy of this order to the OP Bank on 10.12.2007. Annexure C-1 bears the receipt of OP No.1 and their seal in this respect but the contention of OP No.1 is that in fact, it was received by them on 10.12.2008 and not on 10.12.2007. In order to prove this contention, the OP Bank did not produce the Diary Register firstly to suggest that this document was not entered in the said register on 10.12.2007 and secondly to prove that it was so entered on 10.12.2008. The OP Bank has also not produced the affidavit of the official, who received this document to prove on which date he had received it. It is not the case of the OP Bank if this document was produced before Sh.S.K.Sharma, A.G.M., who has tendered his affidavit before this Forum. It, therefore, cannot be said if this document was not delivered to the OP Bank on 19.12.2007.

    7] The contention of the complainant is that right from 10.12.2007 she had been approaching the OP Bank but they did not do the needful. Ultimately on 25.5.2009 she again approached the OP Bank and moved two applications. In one of the application Ann.C-2 it was mentioned by her that the letter from the Accountant General Punjab, Chandigarh was delivered to their branch on 18.10.2007. She also mentioned that when the branch officials misplaced the said letter, she delivered the copy thereof in 2008 also. However, again nothing was done by the OP bank and they slept over the matter as if they were not required to do anything.

    8] Fed up with the attitude of the OP Bank, the complainant served on them a legal notice, copy of which is Ann.C-4. It was thereafter that the OP Bank woke up from slumber and sent a reply informing the lawyer that they have approached OP No.2 through their letter dated 28.5.2009 seeking instructions from the District Treasury Officer for payment of arrears. Annexure C-6 is the letter issued by the Treasury Officer, Punjab, Chandigarh informing the OP Bank that as per the Punjab Government instructions the payment of pension was to be made by the Bank at its own level. It was directed to make the payment of arrears and inform them. It was thereafter that the OP Bank made the payment of Rs.71,962/- on 3.9.2009. The ld.Counsel for the complainant argued that she could not get interest on the amount of Rs.71,962/- with effect from 10.12.2007 to 3.9.2009, which according to him comes out to Rs.9590/- even at a nominal rate of 8% per annum.



    9] The contention of the complainant is that she attained the age of 75 years as on 1.1.2007 so she was entitled to get old age allowance on completion of 65 years w.e.f. 21.1.2003 and 75 years of age w.e.f. 1.1.2007. In view of the Punjab Government instructions, she was entitled to an increase in the family pension but the same has also not been given to her. As against it, the ld.Counsel for the OP Bank argued that the complainant was to produce proof of age or an affidavit, which she did not produce and therefore, the increase could not be allowed to her. He also referred to Punjab Government instructions dated 20.6.1992 to the effect that family pensioners, who cannot produce proof of their age, shall be asked to produce a certificate of age from the Chief Medical Officer of the District in which she resided and her eligibility for the payment of Special Allowance shall be determined on the basis of her age as may be adjudged by the said Medical Authority or the payment of this allowance shall be allowed from the date on which the original pensioner would have completed 70/80 years of age, whichever is later. The ld.Counsel for the OP Bank argued that proof of age has not been submitted by the complainant. The ld.Counsel for the complainant, however, referred to Annexure C-3 in which it is mentioned that an attested coy of Voter Identity Card was attached along with the application in respect of her age. It is not the case of the OP Bank if the said document was not attached by her. The OP Bank did not ask the complainant to submit an affidavit or the certificate from the Medical Officer in case the said Voter Identity Card was not considered by them as proof of age. There is, certainly, deficiency in service on the part of OP bank. They did not bother to see that the complainant is not only a woman but also a widow and a senior citizen. It appears these facts were immaterial for the OP No.1 and they continued delaying her application little realizing that the entire livelihood of the complainant may be dependant on payment of pension. Instead of promptly performing their duty, the OP Bank continued harassing the complainant firstly by not disbursing the amount to her, which was due and secondly she was compelled to approach OP No.1 time & again for settlement of her pension.

    10] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that OP No.1 Bank is certainly guilty of deficiency in service. The present complaint is, therefore, allowed. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation by way of damages to the complainant in lieu of interest, which she lost due to the delay in payment of arrears of pension. The OP No.1 Bank is also directed to release the old age allowance due to the complainant from respective dates and also pay her Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing her mental & physical harassment. The aforesaid amount along with Rs.2200/- as cost of litigation shall be paid by the OP bank to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it would be liable to pay the entire amount along with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum since the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 8.9.2009 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

    11] The OP Bank would be free to recover the compensation/interest/litigation cost from the employee(s), who was/were responsible for prompt payment of these amounts to the complainant and/or who delayed the payment, of course after giving him/her/them an opportunity of being heard,

    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

  8. #113
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default State Bank of India

    Complaint Case No.: 34 of 2009

    Date of Inst: 12.01.2009

    Date of Decision:08.01.2010

    Pritam Singh Meetika son of Late Sh.Babu Singh r/o House No.2128, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

    ---Complainant
    V E R S U S
    1. The Manager, State Bank of India Credit Card Pvt. Ltd., P.O.Bag No.28, GPO New Delhi-110001.
    2. The Manager, State Bank of India Credit Card Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.11, Second Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh.
    ---Opposite Parties

    QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT

    SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER

    PRESENT: Sh.A.K.Sharma, Adv. for complainant

    Sh.Ajay Singh Parmar, Adv. for OPs.

    PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

    Sh.Pritam Singh Meetika has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to refund the excess amount of interest received by them on the loan amount of Rs.42000/-. The complainant has further prayed that OPs be also directed to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

    2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he availed credit card facility of OP-Bank. He also took a loan of Rs.42000/- on 11.02.2006 against the said credit card account. The said loan amount was to be repaid in two years in equated monthly installments of Rs.2065/- per month. According to the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs.50175/- vide receipts (Annexure C-1 to C-14) within 9 months from the date of taking the loan. Thus, he paid interest of Rs.8175/- i.e. @ 42% which is highly excessive and unimaginable. According to the complainant, he paid a lump sum amount of Rs.31,005/- on 10.11.06 as full and final payment and no amount is due from him. It has further been averred that OPs have received 28% excess interest from him and thus he is entitled to recover the said amount. Subsequently, OPs made repeated telephonic calls to him and raised illegal demand of Rs.19,285.75 P vide demand notice dated 17.12.2008.

    According to the complainant, he wrote a number of letters to OPs for refund of the excess interest. Thereafter, he also served a legal notice dated 28.08.2008 through his counsel upon the OPs seeking refund of excess interest but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

    3. In the reply filed by OPs, it has been pleaded that complainant had taken a credit card bearing no. 00040066610181856 and took a loan of Rs.42000/- on 11.02.2006 which was required to be repaid within 2 years in equated monthly installments of Rs.2065/- per month. It has been pleaded that when OP-Bank has made telephone calls for payment of EMI’s. Thereafter, the complainant deposited EMIS as per the details given below:-

    Rs.3000/- on 11/04/2006,

    Rs.1330 on 28/04/2006,

    Rs.2065/- on 24/05/2006,

    Rs.100/- on 25/05/2006,

    Rs.2065 on 9/05/2005

    Rs.150 on 28/06/2006,

    Rs.2165 on 7/07/2006,

    Rs.2065 on 12/08/2006,

    Rs.2065 on 08/09/2006,

    Rs.210 on 05/10/2006,

    Rs.2065 on 3/11/2006,

    Rs.31005 on 10/11/2006

    Total amount Paid : Rs.50175/-

    He paid the above EMIs as per his own convenience. The EMIs were not paid as per the schedule of payment. It has further been pleaded that the payment charges were demanded on the EMIs which were not paid in time or the amount deposited was less than Rs.2065/-. It has further been pleaded that amount of Rs.31005/- deposited by the complainant on 10.11.2006 was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant and the same was not towards full and final settlement of the loan account. It is denied that interest @ 42% interest has been charged. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

    4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc.

    5. Admittedly, the credit card bearing No.00040066610181856 was issued to the complainant and the complainant availed a loan of Rs.42000/- on 11.02.2006 which was required to be repaid within 2 years in equated monthly installments of Rs.2065/- each. Thus, the complainant was required to pay a total sum of Rs.49560/- in 2 years which includes the interest for a period of 2 years.

    The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,175/- as mentioned above against the amount of Rs.49560/- that too within 9 months required to be paid within 24 months which includes interest also. The amount paid by the complainant is more than the amount required to be paid within 2 years including interest. The demand of Rs.19285.75 P as late payment charges is not supported by any agreement nor the details of this amount have been given. A sum of Rs.1330/- paid on 28.04.2006 can not be said to be an installment with less amount as a sum of Rs.3000/- was paid on 11.04.2006. A total sum of both these installments is more than the amount due on that day. So the installments, which are of less amount have been paid on 25.05.2006, 28.06.2006 and 05.10.2006 respectively. OP has failed to prove as to how penalty amounting to Rs.19,285.75P for payment of installments with less amount has been worked out. The copy of the SBI Card Members Agreement has not been placed on record to prove the terms and conditions of the agreement. Furthermore, no statement of account showing as to how the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.19,285.75P in addition to the amount already paid by him has been placed on record.

    6. Admittedly, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,175/- against the actually payable amount of Rs.49,560/- within a period of 9 months which was actually required to be paid within 24 months which includes the interest also. Thus, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.615/- in excess to the amount required to be paid in 24 months including the interest. So the complainant is entitled for the refund of the excess amount of Rs.615/-. Not refunding the said amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

    7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.615/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

    8. This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,615/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 p.a. from the date of order till its realization besides costs of litigation.

    9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

  9. #114
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complaint Case No : 1577 of 2009

    Date of Institution : 15.12.2009

    Date of Decision : 08.01.2010

    Ranjeet Singh s/o Sh.Darshan Singh, R/o VPO Saheri, Morinda, Distt. Ropar (Punjab).

    ….…Complainant
    V E R S U S

    State Bank of India, Hamedia Road, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) through its Branch Manager.

    .…..Opposite Party
    CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

    DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

    Argued by: None

    PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

    The present complaint was submitted by Ranjeet Singh alleging that he purchased an article from Fits Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh on 26.12.2007 and tried to make the payment through SBI ATM-cum-Debit Card amounting to Rs.1700/- but the transaction failed. According to him he paid the said amount to the shop in cash but on the next day he noticed that the said amount had been deducted from his saving account also. According to him, he paid the amount twice for the single article and submitted a complaint to Branch Manager of OP but no action was taken thereon. He thereafter submitted complaint to the OPs and received an assurance that the claim was raised with the City Bank and the amount would be credited as and when a reply is received from them. His contention is that he had waited for a long period. He has written number of e-mails but did not receive any response; that he filed complaints with Ombudsman and ultimately filed the present complaint.

    2] The complaint was received by post. It was without adequate number of copies; the title of the case was not mentioned and a notice was accordingly issued to the complainant to update the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant appeared in person on 29.12.2009. He was directed to submit the documents in support of his contentions for 6.1.2010 on which date he did not come present and the complaint was therefore, adjourned to 8.1.2010 for preliminary hearing. Today again none has appeared for the complainant.

    3] We have perused the complaint and the documents attached therewith. We are of the opinion that it is not a fit case, which should be admitted for regular hearing. It is pertinent to mention that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only stipulation is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the recent decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/National Commission and appeal before the State/NationalCommission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic. The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

    4] The contention of the complainant is that the transaction was not successful. When the complaint was submitted and an enquiry was conducted, the SBI GITC ATM Switch Centre sent a reply to the complainant that it was a successful transaction in the Master Card. The contention of the complainant that it was not a successful transaction is therefore belied by this e-mail.

    5] Since the complainant was alleging that it was not a successful transaction, the OP raised a “Good Faith” claim with the acquiring bank. The complainant was informed that they have no control over such cases. The complainant was again informed on 9.4.2009 that the amount would be credited to his account if and when the fund was received from the City Bank. Since, it was a successful transaction, it appears that no amount has been received from the City Bank and therefore, it cannot be credited.

    6] The contention of the complainant that he paid the amount of Rs.1700/- in cash from his own pocket is not proved from any document. He has mentioned about Bill No.23007, dated 26.12.2007 but did not produce the same before this Forum inspite of two opportunities granted to him. Instead of producing the said bill, the complainant stopped attending the Forum, which requires an adverse inference to be drawn against him that if the said bill has been produced it would have belied his contention that the payment was made in cash, that is why he has withheld the bill and has not come present to argue the case at the stage of admission hearing.

    7] In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

  10. #115
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default State Bank of India

    Consumer Complaint No: 92/2005

    Date of presentation: 07.09.2005

    Date of decision: 21/01/2010.

    Sh. M.K. Anand S/o Sh. Jaggat Ram,

    R/o Chamunda Niwas, Ward No. 7, Paonta Sahib,

    Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

    … Complainant.
    Versus

    1. The Chairman, State Bank of India,

    Central Office, Madam Cama Road,

    Backway Reclamation, Mumbai-400021.



    2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

    Branch at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

    …Opposite Parties.

    For the complainant: In person.

    For the Opposite Parties: Mr. H.S. Shah, Advocate.

    O R D E R:

    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President (Oral):- The complainant appearing in person before us has encapsulated his allegations in the substratum fact that the pension pertaining to the month of March, 2005, was belatedly received by him, hence, its belated receipt by him inflicted pain and torture upon him, which infliction, is, attributable to a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Bank. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OPs-Bank contends, that, the, pension was disbursed in time, to, the complainant and the despatch was made by the OPs-Bank, through, Blaze Flash Courier and the pension cheques were promptly delivered to the aforesaid courier for onward transmission to the complainant, as such, the delay, if any, was, on, the part of the Blaze Flash Courier which has not been impleaded as a party.

    2. However, the above contention has remained in the realm of the pleadings, as the OPs-Bank has not been able to substantiate the said fact, by, adduction of evidence comprised, in, the receipt issued by Blaze Flash Courier marking the fact that, it, had received the consignment from the OP for delivering it to the complainant. Obviously, for, lack of substantiation, the, above contention, is, liable to be not countenanced, as such, there was, no, necessity on the part of the complainant, to, implead the aforesaid courier, as, a party in the array of the OPs.

    3. Also, the OPs-Bank contends on the strength of dispatch register, that, the cheques were dispatched to the complainant on, 2nd April, 2005. However, the dispatch register being in the custody of the OPs-Bank, is, liable to be manipulated to its suitability. Besides, it, not revealing the fact that, it, was dispatched to Blaze Flash Courier, also, falsifies the earlier contention of, its, despatch, to, the complainant through Blaze Flash Couriers. Also it, amplifies the fact that, its, non-existence, in, the dispatch register obviously communicates the fact of, its, preparation, at, the behest of the OPs-Bank, to, create evidence qua, its, dispatch to the complainant. The above act of the OPs-Bank in not promptly dispatching the complainant his pensionary dues for whose receipt, he, had a vested right comprises, a, deficiency or short coming in service on the part of the OPs-Bank. As such, it, having indulged in such deficiency in service, we are constrained to suitably indemnify the complainant, for the pain and sufferings, he, suffered at the behest of the OPs-Bank.

    4. Also, it has been strenuously contended on behalf of the OPs-Bank, through, their learned counsel, that, this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, as the complainant cannot be termed to be a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the OPs-Bank, has not been able to substantiate the said fact, inasmuch, it has failed to prove the fact, that, as to how the complainant is not a consumer, under the Act. Undisputedly, the complainant was serving with the OPs-Bank, and after his superannuation, he, is, getting pension from the OPs-Bank, which, is, being remitted to him by way of cheque and under law, he, has a right to get the pension in time and, its, belated despatch, to, him, by the OPs-Bank, would certainly tantamount to a deficiency in service. In the instant case the cheque on account of pension for the month of March, 2005, was sent to him purportedly through courier which was not received by him in time, hence, its belated receipt by him would certainly amount to a deficiency in service. Therefore, it can safely be construed that the complainant, is, a consumer under the Act, as such competent to file and maintain the instant complaint. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the OPs-Bank, that the complainant is not a consumer, as such, not entitled to file and maintain the present complaint, is liable to be discountenanced.

    5. As a sequitor to above, we allow this complaint and direct the OPs-Bank, to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for pain and suffering, besides litigation costs of Rs.1,000/-. These payments shall be made to the complainant by the OPs-Bank, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the aforesaid sum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, till actual payment is made. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. The complainant and learned counsel for the OPs-Bank undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

  11. #116
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Consumer Complaint No: 150/2005

    Date of presentation: 13.06.2005

    Date of decision: 06/01/2010.

    Sh. Ramakant Joshi,

    R/o Suraj Kund, Lalit Nagar,

    Sunder nagar, Mandi, H.P.

    … Complainant.
    Versus
    1. M/s S.B.I Credit Cards and payments Services Ltd.

    P.O. 28, G.P.O. New Delhi-110001,

    Through its Incharge.

    2. The State Bank Of Patiala, New Land Estate,

    Near Timber House, Shimla,

    Through its Regional Manager.

    … Opposite Parties.
    For the complainant: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate vice

    Mr. Vishal Vasudeva, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1: Exparte.
    O R D E R:

    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant 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 SBI Card bearing No.4006661124076279, provide by the OP No.1 and is being operated through OP No.2 and as per the regular accounts statement, dated 21.09.2004, a sum of Rs.35,294.64 was the amount due from the complainant, which was cared by him, by issuing a post dated cheque against receipt issued by Shri Akhil Chauhan, an authorized agent of the OP. He further averred that the amount due as per monthly statement dated 21.11.2004, is, shown as Rs.1,706.62. The complainant further proceeded to aver, that when he had gone to Gurgaon to attend the marriage of a near relation, then, on, 07.11.2005, he put the aforesaid card to use, it was revealed that the card has been confiscated by the machine for want of clearance of dues, whereas, he had already cleared the due, hence, there was no ground for the improper blocking of the card. Thereafter, he brought the matter to the notice of the OPs through legal notice as well, as by written communications, but of no avail. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP No.2, in its written version to the complaint, raised preliminary objections, vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, and lack of cause of action. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant, is, holder of credit card. It is denied that ATM maintained by it, has given any mal-functioning. It is contended that since the statements of account are provided by the SBI credit card, hence, OP No.1 has noting to do with the maintenance of accounts in respect of the credit card issued by the SBI. It is further contended that when the complainant approached the OP No.2, he was explained the position, and was satisfied with the problem. Hence, it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part or that. Since, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, hence, as per zimni order rendered by this Forum, on, 22.08.2005, the OP No.1, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

    3. Thereafter the contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.

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

    5. The grievance of the complainant, is, that the credit card so issued by the OP No.1 to him, was illegally and arbitrarily blocked by the OP No.1, whereas, he had already cleared the due payment of Rs.35,294/-. On the contrary, it is the version of the OP No.2, that, it has nothing to do in the matter, as the card has been issued to the complainant by the OP No.1, and the statement of account qua it, are also being maintained by it, hence, is, exculpating its r liability to indemnify the complainant.

    6. Undisputedly, the outstanding sum of Rs.35,294/- was cleared by the complainant, on, 31.10.2004, as is revealed from the existence of Annexure A-4, which is the copy of the statement. In this statement, a sum of Rs.1706.62 was shown as the sum due, from the complainant. However, the OP No.1, on 07.11.2005, blocked the credit card of the complainant, without any reason and it is lying of blocked, where-after, also, the OP No.1, continued to issue the statement of accounts. Since, the allegations, as made in the complaint by the complainant, hence, have remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on record by non-adduction of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the OP No.1, as such, the only inference which sprouts, from, the above, is, that the allegations as asserted in the complaint, are, true and correct. Hence, it is held that the action of the OP No.1, in issuing the monthly statements, after blocking of the credit card, was not only illegal and arbitrary, rather, it amounts to both a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Since, the dispute pertaining to blocking of credit card and issuance of monthly statements, is, interse the complainant and OP No.1, hence, no liability can be fastened upon the OP No.2.

    7. Consequently, we allow this complaint and quash the monthly statements issued subsequent to the blocking of the credit card bearing No.4006661124076279, and also direct the OP No.1, to pay damages, of, Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for causing him, humiliation, suffering and pain. In addition to this, the OP No.1, shall also pay litigation cost, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case is quantified at Rs.2000/-. This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1, within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP No.1, through UPC for compliance. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

  12. #117
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    C.C.NO. 34 Of 2009
    Between:-

    Nayer Eqbal S/o late M.A. Rawoof, age: 39 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.6-3-45, Habeebnagar Street, Mahabubnagar-509001.

    … Complainant
    And

    The State Bank of India, Nagarkurnool Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Nirmala Devi Street, Yerragadda Colony, Nagarkurnool town & Mandal.

    … Opposite Party
    This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 6-1-2010 in the presence of Sri S. Shyam Prasad Rao, Advocate, Nagarkurnool for the complainant and Sri V. Vignaneshwara Sharma, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite party and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
    O R D E R

    (Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, Member)

    1. This is a complaint filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant praying this Forum to direct the OP to deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- with future interest @ 18% p.a. from 6.1.2007 till the date of payment and to pay compensation along with costs of the complaint.

    2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that his wife Smt. Haseem Firdous opened bank accounts with OP vide SB A/c No.4118 (old) and at present the account number is 11011724952 and the account was operated by her. Subsequently the complainant joined in the said account and the account was converted into joint account under mode of either of survivor and used to make transactions by depositing and withdrawing the amount in the said SB account by the complainant and his wife jointly. Further on 4.1.2007 the complainant withdrawn an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the said account. After withdrawal of Rs.75,000/- he received a phone call from his relative. Hence he redeposited the same in the said account on the same day itself. On 8.5.2008 he detected the short of amount of Rs.75,000/- in his bank account and observed that Rs.75,000/- was debited from the account. Immediately he obtained statements of account of SB A/c from 28.11.2006 to 8.5.2008 and surprised by seeing that the amount of Rs.75,000/- in the said SB A/c was erroneously transferred to the A/c No.098955058752 on 6.1.2007 showing the debit entry to his account. The complainant approached higher officers and OP severally in this regard and without satisfying the replies given by them from time to time, he filed the present case to direct the OP to deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- with future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of illegally debited the said amount to the Bank A/c by the OP i.e., from 6.1.2007 till the date of payment apart from costs and compensation.

    On the other hand, the rebuttal contention of the OP is that the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 from his account, but no amount of Rs.75,000/- was deposited by the complainant into his account on 4.1.2007. It is absolutely false to contend that the complainant deposited the sum of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 as contended in the complaint. The complainant being fully aware of the fact that he has not deposited Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 but withdrawn the amount of Rs.75,000/- on that date, as such he kept quiet all along for over one year without raising any claim. The complainant obtained statements of his account several times between 28.11.2006 and 8.5.2008 but contends that he perused the details of the account only on 8.5.2008. In fact the erroneous credit took place on 4.1.2007 and the same was rectified on 6.1.2007. The present complaint is filed after 2 years 3 months. Hence, the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum within the limitation time.The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP, hence the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for. The complaint may be treated as frivolous and vexatious and hence liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

    3. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11 on his behalf.

    4. The opposite party filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-6 on his behalf.

    5. The complainant and OP filed their respective written arguments.

    6. Heard the learned counsel at length.



    7. Now the points for consideration are:



    i) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

    ii) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service against OP?

    iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
    8. Point No.1:- One of the allegations of the OP is that the complainant has filed the complaint after 2 years 3 months from the date of alleged transaction i.e., 4.1.2007. The complainant has also not filed any petition for condonation of delay so occurred. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for OP argued on this issue by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (2) CCC 50 (SC). The complainant contended that the complaint is within the limitation from the date of knowledge i.e., 8.5.2008 vide Ex.A-1 and from 2.7.2008 on the day when the OP informed through Ex.A-3 that the debit entry pertaining to reversal of erroneous credit entry. We have gone through the material available before us. The OP has not placed any material to show that the complainant is aware about the debit entry on 4.1.2007 or 6.1.2007. It is evident from Ex.A-1, dt.8.5.2008 that the OP furnished the statement of transaction for the period from 28.11.2006 to 8.5.2008. The Ex.A-2, dt.1.7.2008 reveals that the complainant asked clarification about the entry. The Ex.A-3, dt.2.7.2008 shows that for the first time OP made it clear that the debit entry dt.6.1.2007 is pertaining to reversal of erroneous credit entry given on 4.1.2007. So it can be safely concluded that the consumer dispute arose on 2.7.2008 and the complaint is filed on 18.3.2009. As such the complaint is within the limitation from 2.7.2008. Hence this point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.



    9. Point No.2:- The main allegation of the complainant is that the OP bank rendered services in deficient by debiting the amount of Rs.75,000/- arbitrarily from his account without his knowledge on 6.1.2007 which was deposited on 4.1.2007 by him. In rebuttal OP contended that the complainant has not deposited the amount of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 but seeks to get the benefit of the same only by reason of an erroneous entry in his account made by cashier of OP bank on 4.1.2007. The complainant has not filed any counter folio or relevant material to prove that he has deposited Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 as alleged by him. He relied on the statement i.e., Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-11 pass book to show that even according to the entries made by OP bank in their own records, there is a credit entry to his account to the tune of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 which is sufficient to prove that he has deposited the same on 4.1.2007. But whereas the OP bank without any notice arbitrarily made debit entry on 6.1.2007 and transferred the amount of Rs.75,000/- to some other account. The complainant admitted that he lost counter folio, hence he is unable to produce the same before the Forum. It is evident from the record available before us that in complaint zonal officer of OP bank appointed one project officer by name Sri N.V. Anantha Kumar, Dy. Manager, Z.O.C.L., SBI, Hyderabad Module to investigate the issue. The said officer submitted his report on 2.7.2008 and it is marked as Ex.B-3. The said Ex.B-3 report speaks about the process of banking system and things happened in the disputed transactions. The said project officer has given his final opinion about the transaction in dispute that “on enquiry of this A/c 11011724952 there was an erroneous credit of Rs.75,000/- through cash menu. To rectify the mistake the branch has debited this a/c with Rs.75,000/- through single side i.e., cgl cash rectification menu. Hence this a/c was debited and credited to 98955 to nullify the debit entry of 4.1.2007. It is observed that there is no lapse on the part of the operating staff, just due to the knowledge gap of the systems only, they had given credit to the customer’s a/c on 4.1.2007”. It is crystal clear from Ex.B-3 report that due to the lack of knowledge of computer operating system, the cash clerk has given credit entry of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007. To rectify the mistake OP has debited the amount from the complainant’s account. When the OP proved that there is an erroneous credit given to complainant’s account for the sum of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007, to rectify the same, the OP has given debit entry to the complainant’s account. No inference can be drawn in favour of the complainant that he actually deposited amount of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 as reveals under Ex.A-1 and A-11. The complainant failed to prove his case of depositing of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 with cogent evidence to prove his allegation made in the complaint. The Hon’ble A.P. State Commission in its reported decision in C.P.J. 2000 (1) P. 259 in the case between P. Vanja Kumari Vs. A.S. Reddy Basha and another opined that “Complaint cannot be proof of the allegations therein. Allegations must be proved by the complainant by cogent evidence”. In light of this decision and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case of depositing of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 with OP bank. At the same time the OP proved that the complainant has not deposited the amount of Rs.75,000/- on 4.1.2007 but there was erroneous credit of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant’s account and to rectify the mistake, OP has debited the amount of Rs.75,000/- on 6.1.2007. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint against OP is not maintainable. Accordingly this point is decided in favour of OP and against to the complainant.



    10. Point No.3:- It is opined in point No.2 that the complainant has failed to prove his case of deficiency of service against the OP bank. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence this point is decided against the complainant.

    11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but for the circumstances of

    the case no order as to costs.

  13. #118
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default State Bank of India

    CC.No.230 of 2009

    BETWEEN:

    P. Venkata Rao,

    Former Secretary,

    A.P. Co-operative Tribunal,

    H.No.2-14-110, Syamala Nagar,

    4th line, Guntur-6. … Complainant

    and

    The Branch Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Amaravathi,

    Guntur district. …Opposite Party



    This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 19.01.2010 in the presence of complainant and the opposite party remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
    O R D E R

    Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member :- This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on the opposite party to authorize him to operate the locker No.48 of State Bank of India, Dharanikota Branch, Amaravathi, Guntur district as per the will of deceased wife and according to the certificate of proper person issued by Tahsildar, Guntur.

    The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

    The complainant is Mr. P. Venkat Rao S/o late Sri P. Lakshmaiah, Syamalanagar, Guntur. His wife Smt P. Padmavathi Devi who died on 3-11-07, had a locker No.48 in State Bank of India, Dharanikota Branch, Amaravathi, Guntur district.

    After death of his wife the Manager and staff sent a notice in the name of alleged nominee by name ‘Radheshyam’ to obtain the contents of locker. On perusal of nomination form DA1 the said nominee is described as son of deceased aged about 6 years old. But the deceased Smt P. Padmavathi had no children at all through this complainant.

    The complainant alleges the hand writing of nominee name in the nomination form is different from the hand writing of Smt P. Padmavathi Devi and the date of birth is also not mentioned in the form. The Manager and the staff of the State Bank of India, made a fictitious nomination as “Radehsyam Pattabathano aged 6 years as son of Smt P. Padmavathi Devi” for the reasons best known to them. In fact, P. Padmavathi Devi has no children. She had also executed will deed dated 27-07-07 nominating complainant P. Venkata Rao to operate the locker No.48 in opposite party bank apart from bequeathing other immovable property. Further the complainant also obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar, Guntur to operate the said locker as he is sole legal heir to the deceased. Hence, the complaint.

    Notice served on the opposite party. Opposite party called absent and hence set exparte.

    Complainant filed affidavit and also documents which are marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4.

    Ex.A-1 is the family members certificate issued by Tahsildar, Guntur stating that the complainant P. venkata Rao husband of P. Padmavathi Devi is the proper person to operate the locker No.48 in the said bank. Ex.A-2 is the death certificate of Smt P. Padmavathi Devi. Ex.A-3 ‘will’ written by Smt P. Padmavathi Devi dated 27-07-07. Ex.A-4 is the nomination form of the bank.

    The Points that arise of consideration are that:

    1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

    2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    POINT No.1:- The complainant Mr. P. Venkat Rao is the husband of late Smt P. Padmavathi Devi. This is also evident from Ex.Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-3. She possessed locker No.48 in State Bank of India, Dharanikota Branch, Amaravathi, Guntur district and operating since 17-12-03. After her death the Bank informed the complainant that locker No.48 can only be operated by the nominee as per nomination given by the deceased. On perusal of nomination form Ex.A-4 it appears that Radhesyam Pattabathini aged 6 years as son of deceased subsequently entered in the form. The hand writing with regard to the entry of nominee is quiet different from that of deceased. This difference can be visible to the naked eye. As a matter of fact the deceased had no children through this complainant. This is otherwise evident from Exs.A-1 and A-3.

    Ex.A-1 is the family members certificate given by the Tahsildar, Guntur after due enquiry through Revenue Inspector which reveal that complainant Mr. P. Venkata Rao is the husband of the deceased P. Padmavathi Devi and no other legal heir is mentioned in it. Secondly Ex.A-2 certificate of death also reveals complainant as her husband. Thirdly, Ex.A-3 is the will executed by the deceased in the name of her husband Mr. P. Venkata Rao. In that it is mentioned clearly that after her death her husband would operate the locker No.48 in SBI.

    It is evident through documents on record that the complainant Mr. P. Venkata Rao is the husband of the deceased P. Padmavathi Devi and they have no children and the complainant alone is the proper and competent person to operate the locker. The opposite party Bank is not justified in not allowing the complainant to operate the locker No.48. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. The point is answered accordingly.

    POINT NO.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed as prayed for in terms as indicated below:

    1. The opposite party Bank shall permit and authorize complainant to operate locker No.48 in their Bank as long as he wishes to retain it subject to payment of locker fee.

    2. The opposite party Bank shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards legal expenses to the complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Order accordingly.

    Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 25th day of Janauary, 2009.

  14. #119
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default State Bank of India

    C.C.NO.128/2007

    Between:

    1. Kumari Navanuri Chandra Kala,

    D/o Late N.Chennakesavulu,



    2. Kumari Navanuri Nagamani,

    D/o Late N.Chennakesavulu,



    3. Navanuri Harish Chowdary,

    S/o Late N.Chennakesavulu,

    (Minor rep. by his elder sister

    And guardian i.e., 1st complainant)

    All are residing at Narayanapuram Village,

    Kothacheruvu Manadal,

    Anantapur District. …Complainants
    Vs
    1. The Branch Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Settypalli Branch,

    Kothacheruvu Mandal,

    Anantapur District.



    2. The Divisional Manager,

    United India Insurance Company Limited,

    Divisonal Office

    Anantapur. …Opposite parties.

    This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Chenna Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri A.G. Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

    O R D E R

    Smt S.Lalitha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony.

    2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - the complainants are the residents of Narayanapuram of Village Kothacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District. This complaint is filed before this Forum for getting death benefit of their father under personal Accident claim under Kisan Credit Card Policy, assured for Rs.50,000/-. During his life time, the complainants father was a ryot obtained Agriculture Crop Loan of Rs.11,000/- from the 1st opposite party on 24.05.2002 and its bearing No. 17/40 and also member in the group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The 1st opposite party has collected premium from the crop loan holder i.e., deceased and remitted the same to the 2nd opposite party herein. The complainants submit that the Government in its welfare policy of the ryots, who were accidentally died during their life time and benefited to their legal heirs upto Rs.50,000/-. The complainant father by name N.Chennakesavulu the policyholder and mother N. Thulasamma, died in a thunderbolt on 15.03.2003 at 6.30 P.M, while returning from their field after performing Bhoomi Pooja in the field and on the way returning home. When they were reaching Achebanda, they were entangled in a hurricane and they both took shelter under Neem tree; to their un-fate suddenly both met with calamity of fall of thunderbolt, which caused their spot death. The same facts were informed to the Kothacheruvu Police by the Panchayat Secretary of Bandlapalli Village and the same was registered by the Kothacheruvu Police in Crime No.11/2003 under section 174 Cr.P.C. and then the said police held inquest to the dead bodies on 16.03.2003. Postmortem was conducted by the duty Doctor at Community Health Centre, Penukonda and the police filed the final report before the Mandal Executive Magistrate (M.R.O.), Kothacheruvu. It is submitted by the complainants that the sudden demise of their parents, there is no elder member to look after them and they lost love and affection and financial support. The livelihood of the complainants is also very difficult. The complainants approached the 1st opposite party and requested to forward the claim application of Personal Accident under K.C.C. Policy Scheme, which was taken by the deceased. All the required documents have been submitted to the 1st opposite party to forward same to the 2nd opposite party on 08.08.2007. But the 2nd opposite party has refused to give policy benefit. This caused misery, hardship and mental agony. Hence, request this Forum to compensate it by granting Rs.30,000/-. Here the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that there was abnormal delay of seven months in sending the claim application. Hence, there is violation of conditions. The complainants submit that both Opposite Parties are liable to pay the policy claim of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of complaint.

    3. The 1st opposite party filed his counter stating that Chennakesavulu, the deceased during his life time obtained Agriculture Crop Loan from this opposite party on 24.05.2002 and also member in Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The 1st opposite party admits that they have collected premium from the deceased, the policyholder under Group Personal Insurance Policy and paid to the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party further submits that it is true that the complainants requested to forward the claim application to the 2nd opposite party for grant of compensation under the Personal Accident claim under K.C.C. Policy Scheme for the death of complainants father Chennakesavulu the deceased and fulfilled all the requirements necessary. As per the request, the 1st opposite party forwarded the claim application to the 2nd opposite party. But the 2nd opposite party repudiated the claim. The 1st opposite party further submits that they are nothing to do with the entertainment of the claim and settlement of payment of the claim amount to the complainants and hence 1st opposite party requested that the claim against them may be liable to be rejected as they are not the proper parties to proceed against the 1st opposite party. The further allegation that they unnecessarily impleaded in this case, without cause of action. Hence prays this Forum to dismiss the complaint.

    5. The 2nd opposite party filed counter denying all the allegations. The 2nd opposite party submits that the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainants are not consumers as enumerated under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the complaint should be rejected. This opposite party submits that the complainants are not the legal heirs of the deceased to pay compensation under the said personal Accident Insurance Policy. Unless the complainants prove the same, this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants under the said Insurance Policy. This opposite party submits that there is abnormal delay of more than seven months in giving intimation to this opposite party about the alleged death of the deceased-K.C.C. holder and thus the complainants have grossly violated the terms and conditions of the said Personal Accident Insurance Policy to Kishan Credit Card Holders and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This opposite party submits that the complainants have not complied with the necessary requirements of the company as required under the terms and conditions of the said Personal Accident Insurance Policy to Kisan Credit Card Holders and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As there is no deficiency of service the Forum can not entertain the complaint and the Forum has no jurisdiction. The issue as required elaborate oral and documentary evidence, the complainants should file civil suit. The opposite party further alleges that some of the documents filed are nothing but created and colluded with the concerned persons for the purpose of claiming compensation under Personal Accident Insurance Policy. As the complainants violated the terms and condition, the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation under the said Insurance Policy. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their side. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    6. The complainants and the opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence on behalf of the complainants the Kisan Credit Card Passbook is marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is Death Certificate of N.Chennkesavulu. Ex.A3 is F.I.R. Ex.A4 is Inquest Report. Ex.A5 Postmortem Report of N.Chennakesavulu, the deceased and Ex.A6 is the final report of the Mandal Executive Magistrate and Mandal Revenue Officer Kothacheruvu. EX.A7 is the family legal heir certificate given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothacheruvu. Ex.A8 is the repudiation letter of the 2nd opposite party addressed to the complainant.

    7. There were no documents filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party Ex.B1 to B4 are marked. Ex.B1 is the Group Insurance Policy with conditions and the list of the Group Member covered under this policy. S.L.No.197 is of deceased N.Chennakesavulu and the nominee is wife Thulasamma. Ex.B2 is the letter of the Sate Bank of India i.e., 1st opposite party intimating the 2nd opposite party about the Accidental death of N.Chennakesavulu on 15.03.2003 on account of thunderbolt and policy No.0517000/42/02/0096 dt.25.07.2002, which is covered from 24.07.2002 to 23.07.2005, assured amount is Rs.50,000/- and requested to arrange to settle the claim at the earliest. Ex.B3 is the form of application of claim. Ex.B4 is repudiation letter of 2nd opposite party to the complainants, stating repudiating the claim because of the delay of seven moths.

    8. The points for determination are:-

    (i ) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?

    (ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the opposite parties 1 & 2?

    (iii) To what relief?

    9. Heard both sides.

    10. POINTS 1 & 2: Chennakesvulu and Thulasamma deceased father and mother of the complainant died due to thunder bolt. The facts are deceased and his wife coming back from their fields after performing bhoomi pooja at 6.30 P.M. Suddenly hurricane started, they took shelter under the Neem tree, near Achevanda. They instructed their son, who accompanied them to go home and they will come after the suppression of this hurriacane. But to their un-fate they became victims of the thunder bolt, died on the spot. To that extent death certificate (Ex.A2) F.I.R. (Ex.A3), inquest report (Ex.A4) Postmortem certificate (Ex.A5) are filed. In postmortem report doctor opined that the deceased died due to shock of electrocution (Thunder storm) in the final report given by Mandal Executive Magistrate and Mandal Revenue Officer (Ex.A6) referred this case as accidental death due to the calamity of fall of thunderbolt. By all the above documentary evidence and the affidavits in lieu of evidence reveals that the death is due to thunderbolt. There was no dispute regarding the death of the deceased. The complainant submitted that all the documents necessary for the claim i.e., F.I.R. P.M. report legal heir certificate etc., submitted to the 1st opposite party for claim. In turn the 1st opposite party forwarded the documents to the 2nd opposite party with a request to settle the claim soon. The complainants as consumers submitted (section 3 of C.P. Act) after knowledge of policy. The 1st opposite party is the State Bank of India given loan to N. Chennakesavulu the deceased, the policyholder of personal Accident Policy of K.C.C. Policy. The 1st opposite party after knowing about the death of the deceased on 20.01.2003 intimated the same to the 2nd opposite party without delay. The 1st opposite party Bank has forwarded letter to the insurance company/2nd opposite party immediately. Hence, the bank has fulfilled its responsibility. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party.

    11. The 2nd opposite party in his counter objects that the complaints are not Consumers. But according to Consumer Protection Act the section 2 (b) (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative are consumers

    12. Here the deceased and the nominees died due to thunderbolt and the 3 children’s are the legal heirs of the deceased the policyholder. Certificate the Mandal Revenue Officer (Ex.A7)and the F.I.R. report prove that they are legal hires of deceased.

    13. The opposite party took objections of limitation that the complainants delayed in claim and informing about the death. We should observe that the clause of intimation immediately with in one month from the date of accident is with the view to ascertain and assess the truth of the incident/accident in order to come to a conclusion regarding the accident. The delay in intimation might change or arrange the evidences of the accident. But here in the present case there was no dispute regarding the death of deceased and there is no chance of suppression of facts/incident and complainants are not claiming fraudulently. Hence, delay in intimating can be considered.

    14. In support to this, relied on the decision reported in I (2009) CPJ 147 between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Jamdar Prasad, wherein it was held that “ Consumer Protection Act,1986 – Section 2(1) (g)- Insurance – Accidental death – claim repudiated due to delayed filing of claim – Complaint allowed by Forum – Hence appeal – No reasonable opportunity given to widow to explain delay – Widow undergoing mourning period cannot be expected to rush to insurer to lodge claim- Claim submitted on 25.08.2003, repudiated on 18.03.2005 – Delay in rejection of claim highly objectionable – No post-mortem carried out, insistence for post-mortem report unjustified – Voluminous documentary evidence produced to show that insured met with accidental death – order of Forum upheld”. In the above case it is well discussed by the commission has taken a view in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Sumitra Shankar Kumbhar & others in F.A.No.1540 of 2005 decided on 06.05.2006, that stipulation for submission of claim is not a mandatory. After death of bread winner, the widow and the children are practically come on the street and therefore, immediate financial aid is required. The prompt intimation with full particulars of the claim is insisted in the interest of the claimants, who are left behind on account of said demise of the bread winner of the family. The whole intention is to save the family members from starvation. It is not proper on the part of the Insurance Company to throw away the genuine claim of a widow simply relying on policy condition No.1. Policy condition No.1 was impossible to comply so far as facts of the given case are concerned.

    15. Here the children of the deceased being lost their parents were under the stress and they are not supposed to know every activity of the parents. Presuming that they have no knowledge of the policy of the deceased they are unable to approach. When the forum raised the question how could the complainants came to know the complainant counsel submitted that when the 1st opposite party demanded for the clearance of the loan, then only the complainants had the knowledge of the loan and about policy. The 2nd opposite party vehemently opposed that this was not written in the complaint. Hence, that should not be taken into consideration. But the forum is convinced that the complainants could have no knowledge about the policy of deceased. If they know about the policy they would have claimed immediately because being lost the parents and they themselves are in that position that they could not support the family. After the death of the parents, their struggle for existence and the miseries should be considered. Here the children of the family who were in the studying stage could be not in a position to have the knowledge of loan and polices taken with Insurance Company. They got knowledge about the policy after 6 months immediately they took steps to approach the bank for the recovery of policy amount as bank acted as agent between the policyholder and Insurance Company. The 1st opposite party intimated the same to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party repudiated the policy stating that there was violation of term. Forum believes that there was no knowledge to the complainants about the policy. Hence the delay may be condoned and the contract insurance is between the policyholder and Insurance, which is to indemnify the family of policyholder, if the policyholder dies. But under prediction of delay in claiming the 2nd opposite party denying the payment of the policy money is unjust. Here the nominee of the policy also died in the calamity incident. As legal heirs the orphan children in the family should be indemnified by the Insurance Company. But here the Insurance Company did not care to indemnify the family of its policyholder. It is unjust to repudiate the claim that there is delay in intimating. Hence, there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

    16. The 2nd opposite party further alleged that the documents are created and produced are colluded with the concerned persons. The 2nd Opposite Party did not take any steps to prove his allegations regarding the collusion of complainants. Hence, all the contentions of the 2nd opposite party are not tenable. The complainant claimed the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint from the opposite parties 1 & 2. The 1st opposite party acted only as agent between the policyholder and insurance company forwarded the policy premium collecting from the policyholder. The 1st opposite party forwarded the claim application (Ex.B3) immediately when the complainants submitted and request/recommend 2nd opposite party to settle the matter. The 2nd opposite party repudiate that claim on the ground that there was delay of 7 months. But taking into the consideration that the children has no knowledge about this immediately after the death and relying on the decision cited, the Forum allows this petition. Hence, Forum is directing the opposite parties to pay the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. The complainant further requested Rs.30,000/- as compensation. No such amount is granted.

    POINT NO. 3: In the result, the complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Only) directing the opposite party No.2 to pay the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment within one month from the date of this order. The claim against the 1st opposite party is dismissed without costs.

    Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 29th day of January, 2010.

  15. #120
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    C. C. No. 213 OF 2009.
    Date of filing: 23.10.2009.

    Between :
    Nadella Raghava Rao, S/o Gopala Rao, Resident of 12-10-55/1, Upstairs, Convent Street, Vijayawada – 520001.

    And

    S.B.I. Cards and Payments Services Pvt., Limited., SBI Local Head Office, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001.

    ….. Opposite Party.

    This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 21.01..2010 in the presence of Sri A.V. Satish, advocate for complainant, and opposite party remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following :

    O R D E R

    This complaint is under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    1. The averments of the complaint in concise are as follows:

    That the complainant is the holder of SBI Credit Card bearing No.431757502602737 and that he took the same on compulsion and for social status and infact he is rich and is a contractor and he is utilizing the same and repaying the bills regularly. It so happened that the representatives of the opposite party from Chennai used to telephone the complainant frequently for payment of dues though he is not in due. Disgusted with the services of the opposite party and harassment by its agents he addressed a letter to the opposite party for cancellation of the card by paying all the dues and accordingly the complainant received a letter canceling the card. There after also he received letters for payment of dues etc., and his efforts for settlement became futile so, he addressed a letter on 18.10.2006 but of no avail. Hence, the complaint.

    2. After registering the complaint notice was sent to the opposite party who received it but failed to contest though taken sufficient time.

    3. Complainant filed affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A14.

    4. Heard and perused.

    5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:

    I) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

    II) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

    6. Point No.1: As could be seen from the material on hand there is no dispute that the complainant is the holder of SBI Credit Card bearing No.431757502602737 and he used to utilize the same and used to pay the amounts and infact the same was not denied by the opposite party in any aspect. On the other hand the crucial documents are Exs.A1, A2, A5 and A9 wherein it is clear that the complainant paid the dues and addressed letter to the opposite party to cancel the card (Ex.A5) and there after the opposite party addressed a letter to the complainant vide Ex.A9 dated 02.04.2007 and the recitals are also very clear that the card was cancelled so, there is nothing remaining in between them but yet the opposite party sent demands vide Ex.A10, A11, A12, A13 and A14 demanding the complainant to pay some dues but there is no proof when the complainant used the card what was the outstanding but the documents filed by the complainant discloses payment penal interest etc., to which the opposite party is not entitled that to after cancellation of the card so, the acts of the opposite party clearly falls with in the purview of deficiency in service and the same was also proved by the complainant by way of oral and documentary evidence and infact the same was not rebutted by the opposite party by any means and so this point is answered and favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.


    7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is hereby directed not to meddle with the complainant with regard to Credit card bearing No. 431757502602737 and do pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for causing mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards costs. Rest of the claims if any claimed by the complainant are rejected. Time for compliance one month.

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. State Bank of India, Mumbai
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-03-2012, 11:27 AM
  2. State Bank of India (ADB) Palampur
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:49 PM
  3. Bank Manger, State Bank of India, Murbad Road
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 04:41 PM
  4. State Bank of India Rajgurunagar
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 03:23 PM
  5. State Bank of India, Kururkshetra
    By Kulvinder Kaur in forum Fixed Deposit
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 11:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •