STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/377/2014 ( Date of Filing : 05 Nov 2014 ) 1. Sujay Bakshi S/o Sri Gour Chandra Bakshi, 11, Harekrishna Kongar Lane, Kalipur, P.S. - Parnasree, Kolkata - 700 061. 2. Smt. Lila Bakshi W/o Sri Sujay Bakshi, 11, Harekrishna Kongar Lane, Kalipur, P.S. - Parnasree, Kolkata - 700 061. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. State Bank of India Head office at 1, Strand Road, Block - B, Samridhi Bhavan, Kolkata - 700 001. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Shibrampur Branch Janavilla, Vill. & P.O. - Joteshibrampur, Biren Roy Road West, Kolkata - 700 141. 3. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India Kolkata Branch, 4, Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata - 700 001. 4. The Branch Manager, Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 19 Apr 2024 Final Order / Judgement Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member CC/377/2014 has been filed by Sri Sujoy Bakshi and Smt. Lila Bakshi against i. State Bank of India, ii. Branch Manager, Statement of India, Shibrampur Branch, iii. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India (presently known as Punjab National Bank) Kolkata Branch, iv. Branch Manager Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. under Section 17 of C.P. Act, 1986. The gist of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 is a driver by occupation and petitioner no. 2 is his wife. The petitioner No. 1 is the only earning member of his family. On account of urgent financial need the petitioner sold their property of 2 cottah land with two storied building lying on mouza Jagannathpur, Pargana Balia, Touzi No. 1523, J.L. no. 27, R.S. no. 76, under R.S. Dag no. 95, in R.S. Khatian No. 62, L.R. (Kri) Khatian no. 500 & 501, Plaza Housing Society, being plot no. 199, having holding no. 3916, Plaza Housing, Jagannathpur, Mahestala, District South 24 Parganas, to 4/20/24, 3:15 AM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdfCaseStaus.do?method=GetPdfCaseStaus&cid=4/0/CC/377/2014&dtOfHearing=2024-04-19 2/4 one Sri Pappu Kumar Shaw, son of Sukhdeo Shaw, residing at premises being no. 22, Orphan Gang Road, Police Station Watgange, Kolkata – 700023. The purchaser obtained housing loan from M/s Dewan Housing Pvt. Ltd, following which respondent no. 4 issued cheque no. 000834 dt. 24.09.2014 for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh) only drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch, at premises no. 4 Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani Kolkata 700001 in favour of the petitioners towards the payment of the consideration money or value of the property. The petitioners jointly maintain one saving Bank Account with the State Bank of India, Shibrampur Branch Janavilla, Village & Post Office – Joteshibrampur, Biren Roy Road West, Kolkata – 700141, being saving Bank Account no. 30691667417. The petitioners deposited the said cheque being no. 000834, dt. 24.09.2014, for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch, at premises being no. 4, Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata – 700001, for encashment of the cheque value. On 27 th day September, 2014, the banker of the petitioners being the respondent no. 2, herein credited Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only, instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, on clearing of the said cheque being no. 000834, dated 24.09.2014, for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch, at premises being no. 4, Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. Your petitioners were extremely astonished to know such clearance of lower amount of money. On enquiring about the clearing of their cheque with their banker i.e. SBI Shibrampur Branch the petitioners got to know that due to mistake of officials of SBI who sit for clearing a wrong entry of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakh) instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty lakh) had been made and the banker is trying to resolve such anomaly as early as possible and to credit the balance Rs. 18,00,000 (Eighteen Lakh) in the savings Bank account of the petitioners. Although the petitioners visited the branch of the respondent no. 2, SBI Shibrampur Branch on several occasions with a request to credit the balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- in their savings account, it was not done. On 31st day of October, 2014, the respondent no. 2, herein served to te complainant, one letter being reference no. BR17/156, dated 31.10.2014, captioned as Fate of Cheque No. 000834, dated 24.09.2014, stating inter alia as by mistake in CTS, amount was inserted as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakh) against Cheque No. 000834, and the same was credited to the joint account of your petitioners, and given a copy of one another letter being reference no. BR17/151, dated 28.10.2014, addressed to the respondent no. 4, herein captioned as less payment Cheque no. 000834, dated 24.09.2014, by Rs. 18,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) only, presented on 26.09.2014, stating inter alia about mistake and requesting for balance payment thereof, with a xerox copy of said cheque and entry of the bank. However, when the complainants did not get any redress from SBI Shibrampur Branch, they were compelled to file CC/377/2014. Notices were duly served upon all OPs. 4/20/24, 3:15 AM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdfCaseStaus.do?method=GetPdfCaseStaus&cid=4/0/CC/377/2014&dtOfHearing=2024-04-19 3/4 OP nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed their W.V and evidence on affidavit but OP no. 4 did not file any evidence. The evidences submitted by the complainant is similar to his complaint petition while the evidences filed by OP nos. 1,2 and 3 are replica of their W.V. OP no. 4 did not participate in replying to questionnaire of the complainant. Heard the argument of the Ld. Counsels of the complainants, OP nos. 1, 2 & 3. On considering the written documents furnished by OP nos. 1, 2 and 3 it appears that vide letter dt. 28.10.2014 to Dewan Housing, SBI Shibrampur branch has admitted the lapse on their part. In his argument the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has cited the following judgments: In (1991) 1 CPJ 362 (State Bank of Hyderabad v. Shri Bairi Lingam ), it has been held that there may be deficiency in banking services to be rendered by the bank owing to its fault in the due performance of promise to finance. In Filmalaya Pvt. Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, reported in (1992) 1 CPJ 117, negligence on the part of an employee of the bank was held to be a case falling within the purview of the said Act. In the said decision it was further held that the bank is liable to make good the loss resulted from its deficiency in service. In Bank of India v. H.C.L. Ltd. reported in (1993) 3 CPR 30, non- furnishing of payment as against bank guarantee was held to give rise to a cause of action for filing a complaint under the said Act. It was held that a person in whose favour bank guarantee is furnished is also a beneficiary thereof although no privity of contract exists between the bank and such person.” The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that SBI Shibrampur Branch has been totally negligent and has resorted to unfair trade practice by crediting only Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakh) to the account of the petitioners when the actual value of cheque no 000834, dt. 24.09.2014, for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch. Petitioners had been compelled to sell their dwelling house as they were in dire need of money. Under such circumstances they have undergone severe pecuniary loss and mental harassment. The petitioners have prayed for payment of the balance of Rs. 18,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- towards pecuniary damages and Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental harassment and also litigation cost. The defense case of the OP no. 2 SBI Shibrampur is that they had made a bonafide mistake in inserting an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- for purpose of CTS clearing as per RBI guidelines. However, they had tried to sort out the matter as early as possible by writing letters and emails to UBI and also the complainants and they credited the balance amount of Rs.18,00,000/- on 09.02.2015 to the Savings Bank joint account no. 30691667417 of the petitioners in SBI Shibrampur. The defense of OP no. 3 is that the complainants are not consumers in respect of UBI since they do not maintain any account with them. Hence there is no question of deficiency of service on their part vis a vis the complainants. The defense of OP no. 4 being that since the entire Rs. 20,00,000/- has been debited from their account they have no liability towards the complainants. Heard and considered the submission of the Ld. Counsels of all parties. Considered the documents annexed. On appraisal of all W.Vs, evidences, and notes of argument and in terms of the position of law cited, it appears that both SBI Shibrampur branch and UBI are deficient and negligent in 4/20/24, 3:15 AM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdfCaseStaus.do?method=GetPdfCaseStaus&cid=4/0/CC/377/2014&dtOfHearing=2024-04-19 4/4 providing service to the petitioners in terms of C.P. Act, 1986. The complainants were in financial crisis for which they had sold their house. On being paid only Rs. 2,00,000/- against total amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- the complainants have faced both pecuniary harassment and mental agony. The balance Rs. 18,00,000/- was credited to their bank account on 09.02.2015 although they had deposited the cheque with their account on 27.09..2014. Although SBI Shibrampur had wrongly mentioned Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) when they sent the cheque for clearing to UBI, Kolkata Branch, UBI Kolkata Branch was also negligent, since a scanned copy of the cheque was available with them along with the clearing documents. UBI Kolkata Branch could have verified the amount that required to be cleared in favour of the payee. Hence it is ordered The CC/377/2014 is allowed on contest. The OP no. 2 is directed to pay to the complainants a simple interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 18,00,000/- for the period 27.09.2014 to 08.02.2015. OP no. 2 is to pay to the complainants a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for pecuniary and mental harassment. OP no. 2 is directed to pay to the complainant a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. OP no. 3 is directed to pay to the complainants a simple interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 18,00,000/- for the period 27.09.2014 to 08.02.2015. OP no. 3 is to pay to the complainants a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for pecuniary and mental harassment. OP no. 3 is directed to pay to the complainant a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. OP nos. 2 and 3 are directed to comply the above mentioned directions within a period of 60 days from the pronouncement of this order. If the OPs fail to comply with this order within the stipulated period, the complainants are at liberty to put the order into execution. CC/377/2014 is disposed of accordingly. [HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE] MEMBER
No comments:
Post a Comment