Per  Shri H. K. Bhaise – Hon’ble Member.

              The complainant filed this complaint before forum for redressal u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of service and negligence in duty committed by the opposite party. 

              The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

1.            The complainant is resident of village Kamtha, Tah. & Distt. Gondia. She was having Saving Account No. 34652388714 with opposite party.     

2.            At the time of opening bank account the opposite party had informed the complainant that, S.B.I., Main Branch, Gondia had opened “GRAHAK SEVA” branch at village Kamtha namely SBI KIOSK bank to provide easy banking facility to villagers. 

3.            Subsequently the complainant deposits Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on dated 05.05.2015 and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on dated 08.05.2015 i.e. total Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand only) with SBI KIOSK bank branch Kamtha, Tah. & Distt. Gondia.   

4.            On 03.08.2015 when the complainant approached to the opposite party for withdrawal of amount, she came to know that no amount is deposited in the account of complainant.

5.            It  was further revealed to the complainant that there was entry regarding deposited amount in cash transaction register of SBI Kamtha Branch but, concern agent of SBI KIOSK, Branch Kamtha namely Kantaprasad Mendhekar ran away by misappropriating the amount of the bank.

6.            The complainant immediately made written complaint on 29.08.2015 with opposite party and also launched police report on 05.08.2015, but both have failed to take any action.

7.            The complainant says that the opposite party being supervisory authority of SBI KIOSK Branch Kamtha, it is his responsibility to look after its daily bank transactions.  But, opposite party failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.      

8.            The complainant issued a legal notice on 28.09.2015 to opposite party through her counsel stating all the facts.  The opposite party though duly received the notice failed to comply with it or reply the same till filing of complaint.  Therefore the complainant prays for following relief:-    

     i)        To declare that the opposite party is responsible for deficiency in service.    

     ii)       The opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.40,000/- with 12% interest from the date of deposit i.e. 08.05.2015 till the actual payment to the complainant.  

     iii)      The opposite party be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental harassment with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges. 

9.            The notice along with all documents was served to opposite party.  Accordingly opposite party appeared and filed his reply.  The opposite party denied any cause of action for the complaint.

              The opposite party also denied that it was informed to the complainant that the O. P. Bank had opened “Grahak Seva” branch at village Kamtha describing it as SBI KIOSK as alleged.  The opposite party further submitted that the said customer service bank KIOSK came to be opened at village Chhipiya (and not at village Kamtha as stated by the said complainant) by a company named “Network for information and Computer Technology (in short, “NICT”), Head Office Indore (M.P.) and financial transactions of credit and debit of cash belonging to customers of that company were agreed to be linked with the opposite party bank i.e. the same were supposed to be routed through opposite party bank.  All the financial responsibilities were undertaken by that company.  Opposite party bank was simply an agent of that company for credit and debit operations of whatever amount was deposited with it by the said company, so primary liability of cash of the customer was that of the said company and not of the opposite party bank.

              The opposite party further submitted that the said company had appointed one Mr. Kantaprasad Mendhekar at village Chhipiya as its service delivery partner for the said KIOSK at Chhipiya who was solely responsible for financial transactions to be taken place at that service point.

              The opposite party further denies any knowledge about depositing such total amount of Rs.40,000/- by complainant with that KIOSK at Chhipiya (and not at Kamtha).  As far as the counter of pay in slips are concerned the same were issued by the service delivery partner Shri Kantaprasad Mendhekar of the said company NICT and not by any of the employees of O. P. bank.  In this context it is specifically stated that the said amount of Rs.40,000/- had never been deposited with O. P. Bank either by complainant or by said Kantaprasad Mendhekar.

              The opposite party further denied that O.P.Bank has failed to given any reply to the complainant in the matter.  It is specifically stated that the O. P. Bank through its counsel had replied to the said notice on 16.11.2015 and the said reply has duly been received and acknowledged by the complainant.

              The O. P. further denies that the opposite party is supervisory authority of that KIOSK point.  It is specifically stated that the said service point is not at all subordinate branch of O. P. Bank as alleged by the complainant.  It is admitted by O. P. Bank that it  has main office at Gondia for only Gondia town and it is specifically denies that such office of SBI, Main Branch, Gondia will be responsible for misappropriation committed by any other branch.

              It is specifically stated by O. P. that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of this O.P. Bank as well as non-joinder of the aforesaid company NICT and its centre manager.  The O. P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint on this count alone

10.                   Both the parties filed their written version, affidavit and written arguments also.  The learned counsel of both the parties have argued orally.

11.                   After going through all the written submissions and after listening the oral arguments of both the counsels, the following points arose for consideration.   

REASONING & FINDINGS

12.               As to point No. 1 :-   The O. P. has raised objection that as KIOSK Branch at village Chhipiya is managed by “Network for information and Computer Technology (in short, “NICT”) through it’s service delivery partner Kantaprasad Mendhekar, who has allegedly accepted the money from the complainant, but not deposited the same with the O. P. Bank, the NICT and Kantaprasad Mendhekar are necessary parties to the present complaint.  As the complainant has not impleaded them as party to the present complaint, it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed on this count only.

              O. P. has also raised objection that complainant has deposited amount with KIOSK Branch which is managed by NICT.  As that amount is not deposited with O. P. it is not responsible for the payment of amount and no relief as claimed can be granted against O. P..  Therefore, the complaint is hit by mis-joinder of party and is liable to be dismissed.

              During the course of arguments it is admitted by the learned counsel for O. P. Bank that as per agreement between O. P. Bank and NICT, the KIOSK Branch was opened at Chhipiya.  NICT authorized Kantaprasad Mendhekar to accept money from the depositors of O. P. Bank.  As NICT started KIOSK Branch of State Bank of India at Chhipiya as per agreement and managed it with the help of it’s agent Kantaprasad Mendhekar.  There is relationship of Principal and Agent between O. P. Bank and NICT and therefore being the Principal the O. P. Bank is liable for the acts of its agent NICT in the course of business of O. P. Bank. 

              For the above reasons the O. P. Bank is responsible for the acts of its agent NICT and there being the direct relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and O. P. Bank, the present complaint for deficiency in service is maintainable against O. P. Bank alone and it is neither bad for non-joinder of necessary parties nor hit by mis-joinder of parties.  For the above reasons finding of the point no. 1 is recorded negative.                 

13.               As to point No. 2 to 4:-      Both the parties have no dispute regarding saving account of complainant in O. P. Bank.  Both the parties have no dispute about “Grahak Seva” branch at village Kamtha namely SBI KIOSK (Though O. P. said that it is at Chhipiya but no documentary proof is submitted).  Moreover the SBI KIOSK banking branch using CIF Number, Account Numbers, ISFC Code of the same Main Branch @ Gondia.  Therefore it is no point in saying that we are not directly related with the Grahak Seva.  Even in final argument learned counsel of opposite party i.e. Bank argued that such Grahak Seva Kendra are opened by SBI Branches to facilitate banking for villagers.  Thus there is no point in saying that O. P. is not liable for the acts of the person who has collected the amount and not deposited with it.  It is the whole responsibility of manager to check and review periodically the transactions at Grahak Seva Kendra and arrange to collect the whole amount deposited in Grahak Seva Kendra to branch.

              But in this case the authority and bank staff has behaved very irresponsibly, not only that when they came to know about the fraud which was going on at Grahak Seva Kendra, Kamtha failed to lodge police complaint immediately.  The behavior of the manager is any way can not be ignored.  If such irresponsibility goes on financial institutes there may be any hawk in country and people has to disbelieve banking system.  The pay in slip, paper all used by the Grahak Seva Kendra belongs to State Bank of India, Main Branch, Gondia.

              The Bank employee and manager not only neglected the complainant but also put him in financial loss which is deficiency in service.  The complainant has submitted the cash transaction receipt of Kamtha KIOSK branch which clearly shows the amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited on 05.05.2015 and another Rs.20,000/- was deposited on 08.05.2015.  Still bank has turned deaf ear and did not move to take any further action and illegally refused to pay the amount Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.  Therefore findings as to Points No. 2 to 4 are recorded accordingly. 

              Thus, on going through record, written statement and oral arguments, the forum is passing the following order.

-: FINAL ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is partly allowed.

2.            The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 08.12.2015 till the date of actual payment to the complainant.

3.            The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards the compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards litigation charges to the complainant. 

4.            The opposite party is directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5.            Copies of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

6.            The ‘B’ & ‘C’ set of the complaint be returned to the Complainant.