State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma vs The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, ... on 26 December, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11-A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA-700 087. S.C. CASE NO. : FA/104/2013 (Arisen out of Order No. 17 dt. 10.1.13 of DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.277 of 2011) DATE OF FILING : 29.01.2013 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 26.12.2013 APPELLANT Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Late Madan Lal Sharma Residing at 79, Bazal Para Lane Salkia, P.S. M.P.Ghora, Howrah Pin-711 106. RESPONDENTS 1. The Branch Manager State Bank of India Bagri Market Branch 23, B.R.B.Bose Road Kolkata-700 001. 2. Asst. General Manager State Bank of India Clearing Centralized Processing Centre Jeevandeep Building 6th Floor, 1, Middleton Street Kolkata-700 071. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Dipendra Ghosh, Mr. S.Manna, Ld. Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Raju Rabi Das, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MRS. MRIDULA ROY, LD. MEMBER The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order being No. 17 dt. 10.1.2013 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II, in C.C. 277 of 2011 dismissing the petition of complaint ex parte without cost.
Being aggrieved by that order the complainant has preferred the instant Appeal.
The complainants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, is that he is a Consumer under the Ops since he has an account being No. 30420078249 at Bagri Market Branch, 23, B.R.B.Bose Road, Kolkata-700001. The complainant has stated that he issued two cheques being No. 783768 and 783769 both dated 16.11.11 amounting to ` 50,000/- each which the OP No. 1 dishonoured with a remark Due to insufficient fund in spite of having an amount of credit balance of ` 2,30,323 in the said account. Accordingly, the OP No. 1 also debited ` 100/- for each cheque. The complainant has further stated that on 19.10.2011 the OP/Bank debited a sum of ` 99,870/- and ` 17,045/- under the head of Misc. Debit without the consent of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that the OP/Bank illegally held a sum of ` 4,11,244/-without the consent of the complainant, for which the complainant sent a letter dated 28.11.2011, but the same remained unheeded by the OP. Further, as the complainant has submitted, he deposited one A/C Payee Cheque being No. 745012 dated 19.10.2011 for an amount of ` 6,00,000/- but the said cheque too was dishonoured even without any memo of receipt so that the complainant could not institute any case under the N.I.Act. The complainant has further stated that the OP No. 2 sent a letter dated 7.12.2011 to the complainant claiming `24,11,244/- towards the head of Misc. Credit and for such act on the part of the OP the complainant became very much surprised as it appeared to him as direct snatching of money. All these activities on the part of the Ops led the complainant to suffer from mental damage, as a result of which he had undergone the treatment of Professor Mohan Kameshwaran of Madras ENT Research Foundation. Accordingly, the complainant prays for direction upon the Ops to pay ` 9,00,000/- to the complainant for loss and damage due to mental agony and to pay a sum of ` 10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The Ops did not turn up and the case was heard ex parte before the Ld. District Forum.
In course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that two cheques were dishonoured on the ground of Insufficient Fund, but, in fact, there was sufficient fund in his concerned account. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant further stated that the Ld. District Forum erroneously jumped on the decision instead of arriving at a logical conclusion by application of judicial mind and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.
The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, while advancing his argument, submitted that notices were not served upon the Bank and, therefore, the Bank could not appear before the Ld. District Forum. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent further stated that since there was fraudulent transaction in respect of the account being No. 30420078249 the bank authorities locked all transactions in respect of the said account.
In support of his claim of fraudulent transaction the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has filed a photocopy of Investigation Report by investigating officer, Sri Sushanta Kr. Mal, SMGS-IV, Chief Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, prepared in connection with the complaints lodged by M/s. Shamastipur Khetriya Gramin Bank and by M/s. NTPC Ltd. dated 1.11.2011 and 16.11.2011 respectively. It appears from the Investigation Report that on 19.10.11 one official of the Bank by using his own User ID and Password had fraudulently debited the A/C No. 10793849207 of M/s. NTPC Ltd. for ` 2,16,915/- and A/C No. 30164880835 of M/s. Shamastipur Khetriya Gramin Bank, ADB, Shamastipur, for ` 5,00,000/- and credited the amount with the account of Sri Paban Kr. Sharma, Complainant, having account being No. 30420078249 with SBI, Bagri Market Branch.
Further, on 25.10.2011 the said official of the Bank fraudulently debited from the account of M/s. Shamstipur Khetriya Gramin Bank to the tune of ` 5,00,000/- and debited the account of M/s. NTPC Ltd. to the tune of ` 4,40,780/- and ` 1,53,549/- respectively and credited the same to a Current A/C being No. 30420078249 with SBI, Bagri Market Branch, which was allotted to Sri Paban Kr. Sharma, the complainant of this case.
In all these cases no vouchers were found in the records of CCPC, Kolkata. It was observed that no voucher was prepared at all for the above transactions.
In the Investigation Report it was opined that the said transactions were not usual. However, in this connection, the concerned authorities have placed the said official of the Bank under suspension on 21.11.2011.
On perusal of the impugned order it is found that the Ld. District Forum considered the incident of alleged fraudulent credit in the complainants account and, therefore, was of the opinion that the complainant could not get any relief and dismissed the case.
Considering the state of affairs, as mentioned above, and especially the Investigation Report we are of the opinion that fraudulent credits took place in respect of the complainants account, for which the complainant cannot get any relief.
In view of that, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the petition of complaint. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER PRESIDENT