IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/90/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
16.05.18 05.07.18 01.10.19
Complainant: Sakhawat Hossain
S/o Md. Abul Kalam
Vill&PO-Mahalandi
PS-Kandi
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742136
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Regional Manager
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office
Region I, Berhampore (WB)
15, Square East Road, Laldighi
PO&PS-Berhampore
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101
2. Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Bazardanga Branch
Vill&PO-Mahalandi
PS-Kandi
Dist-Murshidabad
PIn-742136
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Subhanjan Sengupta.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos. 1&2 : Sri. Satinath Chandra.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Mrs. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
One Sakhawat Hossain (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Berhampore and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is the account holder of the OP Bank and he runs his business of money transferring through western union, X press money, Transfast etc and business of online form fill-up, electronic bill payment etc through his account. But suddenly in the month of June’17, the OP Bank without showing any valid reason had stopped the transaction of the said account of the Complainant and on enquiry he came to know that the account has been kept in hold mode. The Complainant thereafter approached the OPs for proper redressal but all went in vein. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case for appropriate relief.
The OPs after service of notice appeared before this Forum by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as the cyber crime police station of Goa started one police case and issued notice for freeze of this account to facilitate investigation process until further order as because this Complainant used his account for international money transfer. So, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reason
Undoubtedly, the Complainant is the customer of the OP Bank having its account No. 3347402278 and as a customer the Complainant stepped into the shoe of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is also the fact that the Complainant runs his business of money transferring through western union, X press Money, Transfast etc by using the aforesaid account (vide annexure A,B,C). The Complainant has also trade Licence issued by Mahalandi-I Gram Panchayet (Annexure-D). But suddenly the OP Bank stopped his transaction and the complainant asked for information by filing the question under RTI Act, 2005 (vide Annexure-E). But the OP in reply letter dated 27.07.17 stated that the information sought by you is exempted U/S 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. So, the Complainant is in dark about the circumstances under which his account was hold and marked as false and he is unable to do any transaction through his account.
The OPs have stated that the Complainant used his account for international money transfer business. Cyber Crime Police Station of Goa started one police case vide No. 5/2017/944/2017 and the Inspector, Cyber Crime Police Station, Ribander, Tiswadi, Goa issued one Notice dt. 06.06.17, U/Ss 91&102 of Criminal Procedure Code to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Panaji Goa to freeze the account of the Complainant to facilitate investigation process until further correspondence is received from their end (vide Annexure-1). Accordingly, Deputy General manager, SBI, Panaji Goa forwarded the matter to OP No.2 and they freezed the account of the Complainant as the investigation was going on and no further correspondence was received from the investigation agency till date, so the Bank is unable to change the freeze mode of the account.
It is a fact that the Complainant is suffering loss of business as he is unable to use the account lying with the OP Bank but at the same time it is also true that as a citizen everyone should co-operate with the investigation process of the Cyber Crime Branch.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case against the OPs..
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 16.05.17 and admitted on 05.07.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint case fails . Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Complainant Case No.90/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
