| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 149 of 31-05-2018 Decided on : 24-11-2021 Pargat Singh aged about 30 years S/o Sh. Nachattar Singh R/o Vill. Chotian, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Pargat Singh alias Palli, S/o Sh. Nachattar Singh, R/o Village Chotian Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. S M Goyal, Advocate, for OP No. 1 Sh. H S Dhaula, Advocate for OP No. 2 ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Pargat Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against State Bank of India and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he approached opposite party No.1 for opening Saving Account in his name in year 2010 and furnished the requisite formalities as required by the concerned officials of opposite party No.1 including documents of his identity and photographs and the officials of the opposite party No.1 obtained signatures of the complainant on various documents/forms. Therafter A/c No. 20055615412 was opened in the name of complainant and Passbook was issued by the then Branch Manager of opposite party No. 1 in the name of complainant by affixing photograph of complainant and after appending stamp and signature. Lateron, the complainant applied for issuance of cheque book in his name and he was issued a Multicity cheque book bearing 50 leaves from 259751 to 259800. The complainant kept on depositing the amount in the said account and withdrawing the same through cheques, by using the aforesaid cheque book and he used 12 cheques from the said cheque book under his signature which were duly honoured by opposite party No.1 without any objection. It is alleged that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession. He borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from his commission agent M/s Fateh Chand & Sons, Rampura Phul, through its Prop. Chander Mohan on 25-4-2018. He issued cheque No. 089917 dated 25-4-2018 in favour of the complainant from his account with State Bank of India, Rampura Phul. The complainant deposited the said cheque in his aforesaid account and cheque was duly encashed. It is further alleged that on 1-5-2018, the complainant visited opposite party No.1 for withdrawal of Rs.1,90,000/- and presented cheque No. 259761 dated 1-5-2018 but to the utter dismay and surprise of the complainant, he was told by the concerned official of opposite party No. 1 that there is credit balance of Rs.786.12 only in the aforesaid account of complainant. The complainant requested the officials of the opposite party No.1 regarding deposit of cheque No. 089917 dated 25-4-2018 for Rs.2,50,000/- in the account of the complainant and asked him to again check his account, but he was told that the aforesaid amount has already been withdrawn on 25-4-2018 itself i.e. Rs.40,000/- twice through ATM Card and Rs.1,69,000/- in cash. The complainant requested the officials of opposite party No. 1 that he has not withdrawn any alleged amount as he was neither issued nor in possession of any ATM Card. He also never withdrew any amount in cash and in this regard, the opposite party No.1 can also check the CCTV footage dated 25-4-2018. It is also alleged that complainant contacted concerned Branch Manager Rakesh Kumar, and he told the complainant that complainant has no concern with the said account i.e. 20055615412. The complainant requested the concerned Branch Manager that the account belongs to complainant against which he was issued bank passbook with his photograph under the stamp and signatures by the then Branch Manager of opposite party No.1 and further he has been depositing and withdrawing the amount from his said account through cheques issued in his favour without any objection. The complainant also apprised the said Branch Manager that the Cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- bearing No. 089917 dated 25-4-2018 was also deposited in the said account by the complainant after filling the voucher in his own handwriting which may be checked by the officials of opposite party No. 1 by comparing his handwriting with the handwriting on the cheque deposit voucher and also by checking the CCTV footage, but to no effect rather the opposite party no.1 and its officials did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. It is pleaded that as a matter of fact, the above said account pertains to complainant but opposite party No.1 committed blunder mistake and issued ATM Card in favour of opposite party No. 2 who is having identical name, father's name and address of the complainant and taking undue benefit of the same. The opposite party No.2 withdrew the aforesaid amount from the account of the complainant although he has absolutely no concern with A/c No. 20055615412. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party No.1 and the concerned Branch Manager to credit the aforesaid account of the complainant with the amount of Rs.2,49,000/-, which is illegally withdrawn by opposite party No. 2 from the said account due to negligence on the part of officials of opposite party No.1, but to no effect rather the officials of opposite party No. 1 including the concerned Manager Rakesh Kumar kept on putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext and ultimately refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. The complainant has already filed a criminal complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against Rakesh Kumar concerned Manager of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 before the Ld.SDJM, Phul for registration of criminal case against them. The complainant alleged that due to above said act on the part of the opposite parties, he is suffering mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment for which he claimed compensation. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with upto date interest on bank rate w.e.f. 25-4-2018 till payment. The opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. The opposite party No. 1 in his reply took legal objections that complainat is not consumer as no bank account in the name of Pargat Singh son of Nachhhattar Singh son of Sarwan Singh villlage Chotian was ever opened with oppoiste party No.1, rather the saving account was opened in the name of Pargat Singh son of Nachhattar Singh son of Bhag Singh of village Chotian. The mobile number given by complainant in complaint is 9463842323 whereas the mobilble number given by oppoiste party No. 2 was 9501340414 and even the date of birth of oppostie party No. 2 is mentioned 22-03-1983, but the complainant has neither mentioned his date of birth in the complaint nor produced any such record to show his date of birth. The name of wife of oppoiste party No.2 is mentioned as nominee Veerpal Kaur but the name of the wife of the complaiant as per recent informaion received on inquiry is Beant Kaur. Further legal objections are that the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi or cause of acton to file the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. It is pleaded that at the time of opening the saving bank account, the bank as per mandatory instructions of RBI, banking rules and regulations used to take KYC documents i.e. identity and proof of residence. All the documents pertaining to opposite party No. 2 were supplied. The complainant has knowingly and willfully not mentioned his house number, but the house number of the person to whom the above said SBI account belongs to is No. 62. The further legal objections are that there is no privity of contract between complainant and oppoiste party No.1. As per allegations of complainant opposite party No. 2 has fradulently withdrawn amount beloning to him and has committed fruad upon him. The opposite party No.1 has always acted as per banking rules and regulations and no unfair trade practice was adopted by opposite party No. 1. That the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. A bare persual of complaint reveals that the same has been filed merely to make a fishing and baseless inquiry from opposite party No.1 without any basis. The complainant has not given any particulars as to when he opened the account or whether he had taken ATM card or he suppplied KYC documents and where is his pass book, cheque book of account from the begining. That the complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this case which can be adjducated only after allowing parties to lead detailed documentary evidence which is not possible under the 'Act'. That the complaint is false, frivolous and vaxatitious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is denied that the complainant has suppplied doucments of his identity and photographs to the official of opposite party No.1 in the year 2010 or had signed any such document in the bank in year 2010 to get opened any such account in his name. It is also denied that account No. 20055615412 pertains to complainant, rather as per record of bank, it was got opened on 24-09-2010 by oppoiste party No. 2. It is pleaded that cheque book of above said saving bank account was sent by opposite party No.1 to oppoiste party No. 2 by post which was managed to be received or mistakenly delivered to complainant and the complainant instead of returning it to bank or opposite party No.2 illegally and willfully withheld /kept the same with him and only in the year 2015 he came to the bank with the plea that his pass book was full and completed and as such he might have got issued fresh pass book by affixing his own photo on the same. Due to rush of work, it is always not possible to minutely check and compare the photo already supplied with new to be affixed on the pass book. Moreover the pictorial appearace of both photos appears to be almost similar. So, the complainant took beneift of said fact and got managed to be issued it fradulently by making mis-statement to the said officials of bank to the fact that the said account pertains to him. It is further pleaded that from the pictorial signature of opposite party No.2 and complainant appears to be somewhat similar. Moreover the employees of bank are not hand writing experts. Therefore, the cheques if any might have been passed in accordance with apparent tenor of the insruments in good faith. Moreover, there was no such complaint lodged by opposite party No. 2 that his account is being operated by any other person or unauthorisedly. It is also pleaded that as per application dated 24-09-2010 vide which the said account was opened, the occuaption of applicant is mentioned as labourer and not agriculturist. As per record, on 25-04-2018 there was nil balance in the said account and then a cheque number 089917 for Rs, 2,50,000/- was deposited which was duly credited and out of same a sum of Rs, 40,000/-, 40,000/- were withdrawn on 25-04-2018 and 26-04-2018 through ATM Card and Rs, 1, 69,000/- through self cash withdrawl form but till then no objection or complaint from any corner was recieved by opposte party No.1. It is also pleaded that ATM card was duly issued to the account holder who is opposite party No. 2 and he had used the same being account holder. The said saving account does not pertain to complainant and it pertains to opppoiste party No.2. After controverting all other averments the oppoiste party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In separate written version, the opposite party No. 2 has taken legal objections that no relief has been claimed against oppoiste party No. 2 in the complaint. That the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint that the complainant is misusing the process of law and is harassing opposite party No. 2. Saving Bank account No. 20055615412 with opposite party No.1 is solely in the name of the opposite party No.2 and the complainant has no concern with the same. ATM No. 622 101801544 00040387 valid from December 2009 was issued to opposite party No.2 which is being used by him. It is alleged that firstly the complainant got fake entries in the account of opposite party No. 2 and thereafter in-connivance with the Kisan Union raised solagns put Dharnas outside the bank and created nuisance to harass and humiliate the officials of opposite party No.1. In this way, he created violence, with a view to put stamp from the higher officials on his illegal malafide designs of usurping the amount from account of others, taking benefit of the fact that there are two persons of the same name. It is added that the name of mother of opposite party No.2 is Balwinder Kaur and name of his grand father is Bhag Singh. Age of opposite party No. 2 is 31 years, resident of Ward No. 2, and his House No. is 62, village Chotian. Election Identity card No. KRG 1560390 was issued to the opposite party No. 2 on 5-11-2006 in which House No. 62 of opposite party No. 2 is clearly mentioned. Ration card No. 113 issued on 27-11-2009 in the name of Nachattar Singh S/o of Bhag Singh, in which house number of opposite party No. 2 is mentioned. Electricity connection bearing Account No. B64CH 720016W was installed by the Punjab State Electricity Board authorities in the name of Bhag Singh father of opposite party No. 2. Identity of opposite party No. 2 is not in dispute in any manner. It is pleaded that some of the documents produced by complainant instead of supporting his claim are supporting the version of opposite party No.2. Complainant has produced application filed to Manager of the opposite party No.1 by incorrectly mentioning account number of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 3-5-2018 sent to the complainant clearly disclosed that it has verified the facts and found that above said account was opened in the year 2010 and that too in the name of opposite party No. 2 after taking proof. Documents of identity of opposite party No.2 were obtained by the bank officials at the time of opening the account. Aadhaar Card produced by the complainant has no relevancy because at the time of opening the present saving bank account such like Aadhaar cards were not in existence. Merely preparing wrong Pass book by appending his (complainant's) own photograph by keeping the bank officials in dark has no relevancy with the account of opposite party No.2. Further legal objections are that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. Hence deserves to be dismissed with special costs qua opposite party No.2. That a criminal case deserves to be registered against the complainant. It appears that on account of two persons of the same parentage in the same village the bank officials permitted operation of bank account of opposite party No. 2 to the complainant, but the opposite party No.2 is not responsible or liable for the same. Further more police enquiry on the application of the bank officials to the police is pending and result of the same can be awaited. The opposite party No. 2 is not responsible in any manner on any point for the fraud committed by the complainant with the bank by using saving bank account of opposite party No.2 and responsibility, if any, is of opposite party No.1 and its officials. On merits, it is pleaded that opposite party No.2 opened account bearing No.20055615412 with opposite party No.1 in the year 2010. At the time of opening the bank account, opposite party No.2 furnished electricity bill, voter card and ration card which were required by the officials of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 2 is semi literate i.e. have studied upto 8th standard only and put his signatures on the requisite forms which were required by the officials of opposite party No.1. It is denied that the said account belongs to the complainant. It has been further pleaded that there are two persons of the name of Pargat Singh son of Nachatar Singh in village Chotian, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. By taking benefit of the said fact, it appears that the complainant in connivance with officials of opposite party No.1 may have manipulated things. When controversy was raised by the complainant as well as opposite party No.1, then opposite party No.2 filed application to the learned Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bathinda on 5.8.2017 and brought to the notice of the higher authorities that some of the entries have wrongly been made in account of opposite party No.2. On this, an enquiry was held by the bank officials and opposite party No.2 was informed by opposite party No.1 that the above said account only relates to opposite party No.2 and further forwarded the application for further verification to the police. The opposite party No.2 never applied for issuance of any cheque book nor any cheque book was issued to him. Some body (may be present complainant) applied for issuance of ATM card illegally which was issued but the same was sent on the address of opposite party No. 2 which is still available with him. The opposite party No. 2 never applied for any fresh ATM. If any entries have been made in account of opposite party No. 2 by the complainant in connivance with officials of opposite party No. 1, then opposite party No. 2 is not liable in any manner. The opposite party No. 2 on receipt of second ATM approached the officials of opposite party No. 1 then they misbehaved with him and did not furnish proper adequate reply. The opposite party No. 2 withdrew the amount which was deposited by him. In support of his averments the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 30-05-2018 ( Ex.C-1), photocopy of letter (Ex.C-2), photocopy of Pass Book (Ex. C-3), photocopy of Cheque Book (Ex. C-4), cheque dated 1-5-2018 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of letters (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7), photocopy of envelop (Ex. C-8), photocopy of Adhar Card (Ex. C-9), affidavit of Chander Mohan dated 5-10-2018 (Ex. C-10), photocopy of account statements (Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12) and closed the evidence. In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 19-7-2018 (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of criminal complaint (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of account opening form (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of nomination form (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of Form No. 60 (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of ration card (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of voter card (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of voter lists (Ex, OP-1/7 to Ex. OP-1/9), photocopy of account statement (Ex. OP-1/10), photocopy of e-mail (Ex. OP-1/11) and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 19-7-2018 of Pargat Singh (Ex. OP-2/1), photocopy of pass book (Ex. OP-2/2), photocopy of passbook statement (Ex, OP-2/3), photocopy of front and last page of cheque book (Ex. OP-2/4), photocopy of ATM (Ex. OP-2/5), photocopy adhaar card (Ex. OP-2/5), photocopy of ration card (Ex. OP-2/6), photocopy of voter card (Ex., OP-2/8), photocopy of bill (Ex. OP-2/9), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-2/10 & Ex. OP-2/11), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex, OP-2/11) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. In the case in hand, the controvercy is that saving bank A/c No. 20055615412 was opened with oppoiste party No.1 in the year 2010. The verson of the complainant is that the said account belongs to him whereas opposite parties claim that said account was opened by opposite party No. 2 and it pertains to him. As per opposite party No.1 complainant illegally managed to collect the cheque book from postman which was sent to opposite party No. 2 taking the benefit of name as the name of complainant and opposite party No. 2 are the same i.e. Pargat Singh son of Nachhattar Singh both residents of village Chotian and further he also fraudulently by making mis-statement that his pass book is complete/full, got issued fresh pass book by affixing his own photograph. The pleading of opposite party No. 1 is that at the time of opening of saving bank account No. 20055615412, all the KYC documents pertaining to oppoiste party No. 2 were supplied and in the application for opening the said account the nominee has been mentiond as Smt Veerpal Kaur wife of Pargat Singh son of Nachhattar Singh resident of House No. 62 village Chotian, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, whereas the name of wife of complainant is Beant Kaur. The plea of opposite party No. 2 is that Saving Bank Account No. 20055615412 with opposite party No. 1 is solely in the name of opposite party No. 2 and ATM No. 622 101801544 00040387 valid from December, 2009 was issued to opposite party No. 2 which was being used by him. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that there are two persons of the name of Pargat Singh S/o Nachattar Singh in village Chotian, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda and by taking benefit of said fact, the complainant in connivance with officials of opposite party No., 1 may have manipulated things. The opposite party No. 2 has also pleaded that he was never issued any cheque book nor ever he applied for the same. A perusal of file reveals that opposite party No. 1 has placed on file copies of e-mails (Ex. OP-1/11) vide which communication took place between opposite party No. 1 and State Bank of India, Noida/Delhi. This evidence shows that opposite party No. 1 asked their Delhi office to send original AOF (Account Opening Form) A/c No. 20055615412 of Pargat Singh and reply sent by Delhi Office of opposite party No. 1 reads as under :- “We refer to the trail mail and advise that the account opening forms (AOFs) of LCPC, Noida were kept in Document Archival Centre (DAC) at D 5, Sector- 63, Noida. A fire broke out in this building on 2-6-2018 and some of the AOFs were destroyed in the fire. This account opening form was kept on the ground floor of the building. All the forms that were saved and not destroyed in the fire are being moved to a new building a MEGA DAC, Gurugram.” Therefore, it is proved on file that a fire broke out where AOFs were sotred and in such circumstances, possibility cannot be ruled out that AOF of relating to account in question may have destroyed in that fire. Moreover, opposite party No. 2 in para No. 3 on merits in reply has stated that he was never issued any cheque book nor ever he applied for the same. The opposite party No. 1 has failed to prove that how the cheque book reached to complainant when opposite party No. 2 did not apply for the same and if complainant is not a account holder. It is the plea of opposite party No. 1 that complainant managed to collect the cheque book from Postman but opposite party No. 1 neither produced any evidence/affidavit of Postman nor place on file any document to prove that said cheque book was actually sent through post. The opposite party No. 2 has also pleaded in para No. 5 of reply that on receipt of second ATM, he approached officials of opposite party No. 1 and wanted to know the circumstances under which it has been issued then they misbehaved with opposite party No. 2. Thus, issuance of second ATM also proves that the same was also applied by complainant. The opposite party No. 1 in para No. 2 on merits, has admitted that complainant might have got issued fresh passbook by getting affixed his own photo on the same, due to rush of work, it is always not possible to minutely check and compare the photo already supplied, with new to be affixed on pass book. So, in other words, the opposite party No. 1 has admitted their negligence. The opposite party No. 2 has placed on file a copy of letter dated 5-8-2017 (Ex. OP-2/11) sent to opposite party No. 1 through registered post which shows that opposite party No. 2 has intimated the opposite party No. 1 that entries of Rs. 1,39,500/- and Rs. 5,50,000/- have been made in his pass book which do not relate to him and this information was already in the knowledge of Branch Manager. The account statement produced on file by opposite party No. 1 as Ex. OP-1/10 also shows that those entries were credit entries of dated 26-4-2017 and 9-5-2017. Hence, letter (Ex. OP-2/11) proves that matter regarding account in question was already in the knowledge of opposite party No. 1 since 2017 but no action was taken by them in this regard and due to negligence of opposite party No. 1, complainant suffered loss. Neither opposite party No. 1 nor opposite party No. 2 has mentioned anything regarding above said entries in their written reply. Rather this fact also proves that complainant was depositing and withdrawing the amount from this account. Otherwise also, it cannot be expected that a prudent person will use the account of other person especially for depositing his hard earned money. The complainant has pleaded that on 25-4-2018 Rs. 40,000/- were withdrawn twice through ATM and Rs. 1,69,000/- through cash withdrawl form, from his account. He has also placed on file welcome letter issued to him at the time of opening of account, copy of pass books, cheque book and account statement showing deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of cheque (Ex. C-5). Ex. C-10 is the affidavit of Chander Mohan wherein he has deposed that cheque (Ex. C-5) was issued by him in favour of complainant but the opposite parties could not rebut these facts. Rather affidavit of opposite party No. 2 (Ex. OP-2/1) proves that complainant deposited and withdrawn amount in this account. Moreover, letter Ex. OP-2/11 written by opposite party No. 2 to opposite party No. 1 further proves that opposite party No. 2 had intimated to opposite party No. 1 regarding deposit and withdrawl entries by complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that when a person/consumer opens an account with Bank, the bank official asks for submission of certain documents i.e. ID proof etc., and for completion of certain formalities. Accordingly, if that person/consumer submits all the documents and completes formalities, as required by bank, only thereafter, after its satisfaction, bank allots him account number and provide him welcome letter, pass book and cheque book etc., and keeps documents submitted by that person/consumer. In this case, the complainant has produced on file whatever documents bank provided him, after opening of account, to establish that account number in question belongs to him. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence on file by the parties, this Commission is of the view that undoubtely complainant suffered loss and it happened due to negligence of opposite party No. 1 or in connivance of opposite party No. 1 with opposite party No. 2 and this act of opposite party No. 1 amounts to deficiency in service. Otherwise too, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 if it allowed two persons to use the same account. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No. 1 and stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay to complainant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of withdrawal till payment. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 24-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
