State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs Sri Sunil Kumar Maity on 25 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/784/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 14/05/2014 in Case No. CC/08/2014 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India I.O.C. Township Haldia Branch(7089), Vill. & P.O. - Haldia Township, Dist. - Purba Medinipur, Pin -721 607. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Sunil Kumar Maity S/o Late Direndranath Maity, M/s. Jasoda Fancy Market, Vill. & P.O. - Haldia Township, P.S. - Haldia, Dist. - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 607. 2. Sri Sunil Kumar Maity S/o Late Nanigopal Maity, Vill. - Chaktarowan, P.O. - Haldia Township, P.S. - Haldia, Dist. - Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 607. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Jayanta Kr. Lahiri Ms. Deblina Lahiri Ms. Samapti Roy , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Maity, Advocate Dated : 25 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 14-05-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur in C.C. No. 08/2014 whereof the complaint has been allowed.
Case of the Complainant, in short, is that following introduction/implementation of Core Banking Solutions (CBS), his savings account no. got changed from 01190010167 to 10140478732. When he visited the bank on 15-09-2012 for the purpose of depositing money, he was informed by the concerned staff of the OP Bank that his account no. again got changed and the new account no. was written by the said staff on his passbook as 32432609504. Accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- to the newly changed account. Thereafter, on 16-01-2013, he again deposited a cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the said account. Allegedly, on 11-12-2013, when he went to the bank for updating his passbook, to his utter surprise, he found that the said account showed a meagre balance of Rs. 59/- although he did not withdraw/transfer any amount from his bank account during the intervening period. On enquiry, he came to know that in the OP bank, another person of identical name holds an account bearing account no. 32432609504 and negligently, the Complainant was advised the wrong account no. by the concerned staff of the bank on 15-09-2012. The Complainant wrote two letters to the OP Bank on 18-12-2013 and on 08-01-2014 in this regard, but the OP bank did not give any reply. Hence the complaint.
Appearing to defend its case, it is denied by the OP No. 1 that its staff wrote the wrong account no. on the passbook of the Complainant. Rather, it is claimed by this OP that during discussion on 11-12-2013, when the Complainant met the Branch Manager regarding the dispute, it transpired that one LIC agent, who knew both the Complainant (Sunil Kumar Maity) and the Sunil Maity deposited both the cash and cheque on behalf of the account-holder and recorded the incorrect account no. on the passbook of the Complainant with ill motive. Stating that it is the responsibility of the account-holder himself to correctly deposit money in the proper account and bank is in no way responsible for the same, this OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons Heard the Ld. Advocates of the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 in the matter and perused the material on record carefully.
Present dispute revolves over a mis-information being allegedly given by the staff of the Appellant bank to the Respondent No. 1 leading to deposit of a considerable sum of money to a wrong account.
On one hand, it is alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that one staff of the bank wrote the incorrect account no. in his passbook and on the other hand, the counter-allegation of the Appellant is that one LIC agent, who knew both the holders of account nos. 10140478732 and 32432609504, intentionally created the mess by writing a wrong account no. in the passbook of the Respondent No. 1. Significantly, the Appellant has not adduced any evidence to buttress such contention.
Be that as it may, let us assume for the sake of argument that the Respondent No. 1 himself wrote wrong account no. while depositing the cash and cheque. On going through the documents on record it transpires that savings account no. 32432609504 belongs to 'Sunil Maity'; whereas, savings account no. 10140478732 stands in the name of 'Sunil Kr. Maity'. We, thus, find that there was palpable difference in the names of both the account-holders.
Despite this, while the disputed cheque stood in the name of 'Sunil Kr. Maity' and in the deposit slip also the name was correctly spelt out, we are at a loss, on what basis proceeds thereof was credited to the account of one 'Sunil Maity' merely because the account no. mentioned in the deposit slip matched.
The Appellant cannot ignore the fact that it is the sacrosanct responsibility of the bank to ensure that proceeds of a negotiable instrument is credited to the account once all the requisite information provided in the deposit slip as well as such negotiable instrument vis-à-vis bona fide account-holder matches/tallies in all respects. That being not done, it surely points out gross deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.
Now, let us consider the bona fide of the claim of the Respondent No. 1.
On closer scrutiny of the documents on record, following facts emerge.
First, we find that there was complete parity in the signature being put on the deposit slip pertaining to the disputed cheque for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- vis-à-vis specimen signature of the Respondent No. 1 contained in the official record of the bank.
Secondly, documents on record show that the Respondent No. 1 signs in English; whereas, 'Sunil Maity', account-holder of savings account no. 32432609504 signs in Bengali. Significant here to note that while depositing the cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/-, the depositor signed in English and the name of the depositor was mentioned as 'Sunil Kr. Maity'.
Thirdly, it seems that the Respondent No. 1 voluntarily disclosed the source wherefrom did he get the said cheque. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2, stated to be a salaried person, has not uttered any word in this regard. Since Rs. 3,00,000/- is quite a considerable sum, reluctance of the Respondent No. 2 to disclose the source wherefrom did he receive the said cheque, if at all received, does raise eyebrows.
Fourthly, it is only natural that one would write his name properly while filling up the deposit slip. There is no reason to believe that 'Sunil Maity' (Respondent No. 1) would write his name in the deposit slip as 'Sunil Kumar Maity'.
Fifthly, since banks quite meticulously check the name, account no., amount, date etc. before/while crediting proceeds of cheques/demand drafts etc., it was but natural that while the disputed cheque was issued in the name of 'Sunil Kr. Maity', the Respondent No. 2 would impress upon the issuer of said cheque to correctly write his name as 'Sunil Maity' by issuing another cheque. The amount being quite substantial, the Respondent No. 2 could hardly afford leaving anything to chances.
Sixthly, there is nothing to show that Respondent No. 2 can write his name in English. Therefore, question survives, how he signed the deposit slip while depositing the cheque in English.
Seventhly, it appears from the WV submitted by the Appellant that when the Respondent No. 1 lodged complaint with it, the Appellant, on several occasions, asked the Respondent No. 2 to meet its Branch Manager. However, on one pretext or the other, the Respondent No. 2 avoided meeting him. An honest person never fight shy of proving his bona fide.
Lastly, the Respondent No. 2 has not placed on record any counter part of deposit slip to show that the said amounts were indeed deposited by him.
All these emerging facts induce us to hold that the disputed cheque indeed belonged to the Respondent No. 1.
Next, let us consider whether the Appellant was responsible in any manner for the entire mess up.
It is claimed by the Appellant that, during deliberations with the Respondent No. 1 on 11-12-2013, when he met the Branch Manager to agitate the issue it transpired that, one LIC agent, who knew both the account-holders, with an ulterior motive wrote the account no. of the Respondent No. 2 in the passbook of the Respondent No. 1. However, that being not substantiated by adducing any tangible proof, merely on the basis of an airy-fairy possibility/theory being floated by the Appellant, we cannot give in to such unfounded propositions.
Given that it is virtually impossible for one to know the account number of another person, and more so, as passbook is stated to be updated by Group 'D' staff of the bank, it would be myopic not to believe that the goof up created at the end of the Appellant itself. Besides this, since the Appellant made a great blunder while crediting the amount of the cheque to the account of the Respondent No. 2, we feel, the Appellant must own up due responsibility in this regard.
In the light of our foregoing discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order save and except striking out the award for fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appeal, therefore, succeeds in part.
Hence, O R D E R E D That the Appeal is allowed on contest against the Respondent No. 1. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the order for fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem is hereby struck off. Rest of the order shall remain in toto. This modified order shall be carried out within 45 days hence. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER