Orissa

Jajapur

CC/78/2018

Rashmidipta Nayak Senapati. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dealer,Great Eastern Retail Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:             1: Shri Jiban ballav Das,President

                                                                                  2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member

                                                                                  3. Miss Smita  Ray, Lady Member      

                                             Dated the 18 th day of  September,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 78  of 2018.

Rashmidipta Nayak Senapati    , S/O Ramachandra Nayak     

At. Amarabati Patana  ,P.O. Chhatia    

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

1. Dealer,Great Eastern Retail Pvt.Ltd, Plot No.45,Badambadi,Cuttack .

  

      2.   State Bank of India, Bairi Branch, Branch code( 9067) ,At/P.O. Bairi.

               Dt.Jajpur .

3. Head office of State Bank of India, Unit-3 Kharbela Nagar,Sachivalaya marg,Bhubaneswar

 

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                                      Self.

For the Opp.Parties : 2 and 3                          Sri P.K.Daspattnaik,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No: 1                                 None.

                                                                                                     Date of order:    18 . 09. 2019.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , L A D Y  M E M B E R  .

The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.ps alleging  deficiency in service .  

            The fact of the petitioner’s case  as per complaint petition shortly is  that  he and his family members  visited the  great eastern retail of  O.P.no.1     to  purchase of Samsung  49  inch  LED T.V  As per advice of employee of O.P.no..1  he  agreed to  pay consideration  amount  Rs.51,000/- for the LED T.V  . After convincing  the employee of O.P. no.1 the brother of petitioner  deposited Rs 1800/- as advance booking amount  . The petitioner paid  Rs 49,200/ through   his SBI  VISA  debit card.  Thereafter  took  the LED TV  to  his house but he did not get cash back of Rs 1700/- as well as deca blue tooth head set as per promise  of O.p.no.1  .The petitioner time and again visited the show room for taking the free gift  but the employee  said that there is no stock ,  as the  stock is over .

             On 30.04.2018 he received a phone call from an employee named Pankaj of Samsung Branch office  ,Bhubaneswar who  told  to come to the Great Eastern show room , Badambadi ,Cuttack to meet Bibhudatta , the manager of the show room to get free gift item  deca  blue tooth head set .  There after  on 08.08.2018 the O.p.no2 the Bank manager Nimain ch. Meher told that he has notices  to the Head office of SBI, Bhubaneswar and as per notice the petitioner paid Rs 49,200/- , the B.M told that the transaction was not successful ,so he has paid the above amount .

Thereafter the petitioner visited the branch office of  O.P.no..2  and showed  him the up to date pass book that there was  no  transaction on the date i.e 20.02.2018  .   But the B.M  of O.P.no.2 did not believe  him  .  The petitioner reminded him that Rs.49,200/- using SBI VISA card on 16.10.2017 about one year ago  and that transaction was successful   towards the Great eastern retail Pvt. Ltd  (O.P.Np.1)       Thereafter the contacting the Bank manager  and cheque the SBI account balance by dialing * 99# is zero balance .He asked the  Bank manager  why my account balance is Zero  I can not withdraw or deposit my money in my account . It was unfair trade practice by O.P. no.2 and 3 , they locked the savings account without giving any instruction  to the petitioner  .  There after B.M   O.P.no.2 told the petitioner to give a written application about the facts to  send the application to the Head office  of SBI, Bhubaneswar  .  Accordingly , the petitioner submitted  the written application to O.P.no.2 with attached up dated pass book  with transaction dt. 20.02.18  in the pass book . But after lapse of some days  there was   no  result . Thereafter  the petitioner approached the National Consumer help line about this incident through phone  and the employee of the National Consumer help line told that it is illegal for bank to hold or lock an account of a customer without any instruction .He registered my complaint  No. 881850. The petitioner also sent the E-mail   on 11.09.18  and  lodged complain through SBI  toll free No.  18004253800  dt. 11.09.2018  .            

Finally  the petitioner visited  the DCDRF jajpur for filing the complaint against the O.Ps .In the mean time on 28.9.18  B.M ,  O.P.no.2 told me by phone that problem is solved and the bank is removed  the holder saving account . Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to  pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation  for harassment , mental agony and emotional distress .

            Though  notices was duly served on the O.ps . The O.p.no.1  did not choose to contest the dispute . Accordingly the O.P no.1 has  set- expartee on 07.03.2019 .     Heard  from both the sides.

The O.P.no.2 appeared through their learned advocate and filed the  written version  . The o.p.2  took  the stand  that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. The complain case is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. That the fact stated in para-3 of the complaint petition are partly correct and partly false. It is not correct to say that on 08.08.2018 the Branch Manager of the O.P Bank has told the petitioner about the notice came from the Head office of S.B.I Bhubaneswar in the name of petitioner. However it is correct to say that as per content of this notice on 20.02.18 complainant had made a transaction and same was not successful. Hence demand was made for  recovery of the dues/ amount. It is not correct to say that the O.p.no.2 has humiliated  him for payment of Rs.49,200/- .However it is correct to say that petitioner for the purchase of Samsung T.V used his SBI Visa Debit Card in the point of sale of Dealer Great Eastern Pvt. Ltd for the purchase of it.

            It is further stated by  the O.P  that the petitioner is a customer of O.p.no.2 Bank like any other account holder he has an A.T.M card for easy transaction from his own account on 16.10.2017 the petitioner purchased   a Lead Samsung TV from its authorized Dealer  i.e O.P.no.1 and payment was made through his card on the same day. After realization of payment through card the authorized dealer for Samsung TV issued money receipt to the petitioner. After lapse of several months all on a sudden on 19.01.18 O.P.no.1 made a demand with the system provider that an amount of Rs.49,000/- was not settled on 16.10.17 till the date in it’s A/C.. After receipt of such information the system provider made an enquiry of the matter with the O.P Bank and found that an amount of rs.49,000/- has not been settled in the account of O.P.no.1 ,hence the concern department of  O.P bank  tried to reconcile the matter by debating the amount from the account of the petitioner customer unfortunately there were no sufficient balance was available in the A/C of the petitioner .Hence they have wrote a letter to O.P.no.2 Bank on 01.08.18 to recover the amount from the petitioner customer’s account. However said letter was receives  by O.P bank on 08.08.18. After receipt of such instruction from the concern department O.P Bank made an contact with the petitioner consumer on 09.08.18 and apprised  him about the circumstances and requested him for payment of outstanding amount.

            On 13.08.18 complainant submitted  his written allegation to the O.P Bank stating that under no circumstances he is liable to pay any amount once more and he has already paid the amount. After receipt of the allegation  the  O.P Bank sent it to the concerned  department of O.P.no.3 office for further action in this regard .Finding no other alternative i.e there was no sufficient balance in the petitioner customer’s SB A/C hence to recover the outstanding amount the O.P Bank on 13.08.18. put a hold in the SB A/C of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.49,000/-. After receipt all those documents from O.P.no.2 concern department  O.P.no.3 made necessary enquiry of the matter with the corporate office at Mumbai and ascertained  the real and true fact relating to this transaction. As per intimation receipt from office of O.P.no.3  there was an error at the end of merchant terminal . Hence the amount was not settled to the merchant .On the request of merchant the system was re-installed. On 19.01.18 same was again reactivated on their request. On the very date of transaction the amount was debited  in petitioner’s account and said amount was settled in the merchants account on 20.02.18. Since there are insufficient balance in the petitioner account the amount had not been recovered  from the petitioner .However the branch put on hold   the account of petitioner.  However O.P.no.3 instructed O.P.no.2 to release the hold from the account of petitioner on 27.09.18. Thereafter the O.P.no.2 removed  the hold in the SB A/C of the petitioner borrower and informed him .

            In the above state of affair O.P.no.2 and 3 has got no role to play as per allegation of O.p.no.1, O.P.no.3 made necessary enquiry of the matter and found that the amount was not settled and there was no sufficient balance in S.B  A/C .Hence advice the O.P.no.2 to recover the amount from consumer petitioner. However on the support of consumer petitioner the real truth came to the picture and all circumstances these O.P. no.2 and 3 made their full co-operation to the petitioner for the settlement of outstanding amount. Hence in this circumstances O.P .no.2 and 3 are no way deficient in providing services to this petitioner.

            On the date of hearing   complainant and advocate for O.P.no.2  and 3  are absent . After perusal of the  record  and  documents in details we observed that it is undisputed  fact that the petitioner purchased a LED TV from O.P no.1  with the consideration amount of Rs 51,000/.on dt.16.10.17.

It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner paid the consideration amount by way of Rs. 1800 /- and Rs 49,200/ through SBI  ViSA card  arises out of  savings  bank account   .

The next point regarding the grievance of the petitioner for consideration is  whether there was   any  deficiency of service by  the O.P..no,1.  The petitioner  has claimed that  the sells person of O.P. no.1 assured  him that he will get a cash  back of Rs. 1700/-  if he has paid  payment  through using SBI Visa  Card . He also win  get a deca” blue tooth  head  set which the above decas  blue tooth  as free gift  with  the alleged  LED  T.V . The petitioner also mentioned that he will get the  free gift  like deca blue tooth   head set . As regards   his grievance to the Samsung India  the petitioner did not show  any evidence or broacher  regarding cash back of Rs 1700/- in case he has paid  the consideration  amount through SBI japur VISA  debit card  for purchasing the above LED TV .

             The petitioner mentioned  in the  complaint petition  he has paid   Rs 49,200/-  through  SBI  VISA   debit card then the transaction was successful  .  Thereafter the O.P  no.1 handed over the LED TV to the petitioner . But under what circumstances  the  O.P.no.2 and 3  . Put as  hold  on the   saving account of the petitioner  after lapse of 3 moths i.e on  8.8.2018  as well as without prior intimation to  the petitioner .

On this point  we have not come across with any  satisfactory  reason  / reply from the above O.Ps  regarding hold of the savings account  of the petitioner .

            Accordingly we are inclined to hold that there are not only gross deficiency of service but also unfair trade  practice from O.P.no. 2 and 3  to  hold the  savings account  of  the petitioner without intimating  him, for which the petitioner  suffered  a lot .

Hence this Order

The dispute  is dismissed against O.P. no. 1   and allowed against O.P.no.2 and 3  . The O.P.no.2 and 3   is directed to pay Rs .5,000/-  to the petitioner  within one   month after receipt of this order , failing which the petitioner can take steps  as per law .  

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18th  day of September,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.