DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                             Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2014

                                                          Date of institution:  04/06/2014   

                                                              Date of decision   :  24.09.2015

Kulwinder Singh aged about 43 years, son of Sh. Sadha Singh, resident of village Badinpur, Post Office Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

State Bank of India, branch office at G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Manager/Branch Manager.

…..Opposite party       

Complaint Under Sections  11 to 14  of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                     

 Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :      Sh. B.M.Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                  Sh. S.K.Garg, Adv.Cl. for the opposite parties.

ORDER

By Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                   Complainant, Kulwinder Singh aged about 43 years, son of Sh. Sadha Singh, resident of village Badinpur, Post Office Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant is the holder of Saving Bank Account No.20023628350 in the OP branch.  The OP issued cheque book No. R/09530/969 dated 14.06.2012 of 50 cheques and another cheque book No.0-32-102/0950/R.704 to the complainant. Certain amount was deposited by Bemitra Chattisgarh and Pitch Padi Naka, Raipur, District Chattisgarh, in the said saving account of the complainant. At that time, the OP had deducted the fee of the deposits and withdrawal of the amount in the said account of the complainant.  The complainant issued an account payee cheque No.315603 to the family of his servant and when the cheque was presented in the account of the complainant, the bank withheld the cheque and did not honour the same.   The complainant approached the branch and disclosed his grievance to the Branch Manager. The Branch Manager assured the complainant that the bank will take care of the said matter and will redress the grievance of the complainant.  The complainant further came to know that an amount of Rs.27,000/- had been withdrawn from his account by some other person/stranger and the said amount was misappropriated.  The complainant raised his protest with the OP and he was again assured that the matter will be looked and he should come after some days. After some days the complainant approached the Assistant General Manager of OP but instead of doing the needful, the said Assistant General Manager insulted and defamed the complainant and further told him that he is not the holder of the said account.  The complainant then showed the cheque books and receipts in respect of deposits and withdrawal but to no effect.  Thereafter, the complainant came to know that due to negligence on the part of the OP the account of the complainant was allowed to be operated by some other person of the same name i.e. Kulwinder Singh of the village of the complainant.  The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and gross negligence on its part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the opposite parties to pay the amounts illegally withdrawn by the said Kulwinder Singh and further to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.  

3.                The complaint was contested by the OP. In reply to the complaint OP stated that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the present complaint does not fall under the provisions of Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is not the Consumer of the OP as there is no account No.20023628350 in the name of the Kulwinder Singh son of Sadha Singh in the bank. As such, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OP Bank. The account No. 20023628350 is in the name of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh resident of Badinpur, Tehsil Amloh. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1,  attested copy of loan book Ex. C-2, attested copy of receipt Ex. C-3, copies of index of cheque book Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5 and copies of other documents Ex. C-6 to Ex.C-8, attested copy of receipt dated 10.01.2012 Ex. C-9 and  closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered affidavit of  Satwinder Singh, AGM of SBI Ex. OP-1, copy of account opening form of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh Ex. OP-2, copy of driving license of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh Ex. OP-3, copy of pass book of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh Ex. OP-4,  copy of account opening form Part- 1 of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh Ex. OP-5, copy of specimen signature card of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh Ex. OP-6, copy of form DA-1 nominee/nomination form Ex. OP-7, copies of KYC proof Ex. OP-8,OP-9  and closed the evidence.

5.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is evident from Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5 that the account No.20023628350 is in the name of Kulwinder Singh son of Sadha Singh and that two cheque books containing cheques from No.653176 to 653200 and from No.315601 to 315650 have been issued by the OP in the name of the complainant. The Ld. counsel further submitted that it is well established from payment receipt Ex. C-9 and statement of account Ex. C-8 that the said account number is in the name of the complainant. Ex. C-8 also shows the charges levied for inter branch transfer and cheque numbers are also mentioned in the statement.  The Ld. counsel pleaded that it was the duty of the OPs to inquire and find out the real facts, which they failed to do so. The Ld. counsel argued that as the negligence on the part of the OP has been proved from Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-9, his complaint deserves to be accepted.

6.                On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the OP has not issued any cheque book in the name of the complainant. The account number 20023628350 is in the name of Mr. Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh of village Badinpur and not in the name of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer of the OP and the complaint does not fall under the provisions of Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Ld. counsel for the OP further pleaded that the complainant has no concern with above said account number and has no right or authority to operate the said account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and  it pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral as well as written submissions, we are of the view that certainly the account No. 20023628350 is in the name of the complainant and the two cheque books have been issued in the name of the complainant. The cheque issued by the complainant has been wrongly withheld by the OP. There seems to be a goof up by the OP by issuing the account No. 20023628350 in the name of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh, which had already been allotted to Mr. Kulwinder Singh son of Sadha Singh. No pass book, cheque book or any statement of account  have been produced by the OP in the name of Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh. Only account opening form Ex. OP-2 has been produced, which do not prove that the account is being operated by the said Kulwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh. This is another deficiency in service that two persons have been issued the same account number.

8.                Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we partly accept the complaint and thus the complainant deserves to be compensated for the deficiency on the part of the OP and mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. Hence, we direct the OP to return the cheque to the complainant if it is still being withheld by them and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousands only) for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.2500/- towards the cost of litigation. The OP is directed to comply with the order of this Forum within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case the OP fails to comply with this order within 45 days, the OP shall also be held liable to pay 9 % interest on the amount so awarded till its realization

9.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 24.09.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)         

 President

(A.B. Aggarwal)                    

  Member