State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Debasis Palit, 40, B.B.C. Bhar Rd. ... vs General Manager, Sbi, Net Work-1, ... on 27 August, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West
Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE
ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.FA/24/2012
(Arising out of order dated 26/12/11 in
Case No.134/2008 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly)
DATE OF
FILING:25/01/12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:27/08/12
APPELLANT : Sri
Debasis Palit
S/o-Sri Bikash Kumar Palit
40, B.B.C.
Bhar Road, Bhakunda
P.O.&P.S.Chandannagore
Dist.Hooghly-712 136
RESPONDENTS :
1) The General Manager
State Bank
of India,
Net Work-1
Local Head
Office
Samridhi
Bhawan
Block-B, Strand Road
Kolkata-700
001
2) The Assistant
General Manager
State Bank
of India
N.R.I.
Branch (Code No.6284)
42C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road
Jeevan Sudha
(3rd floor)
Kolkata-700
071
3) The
Manager
State Bank
of India
Chandannagore
Branch
(Code
No.053)
P.O.&P.S.
Chandannagore
District-Hooghly
BEFORE : HONBLE
JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee
President
HONBLE
MEMBER : Sri
S. Coari
FOR THE APPELLANT :
Mrs.
M. Sharma
Ld.
Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Surajit Auddy
Ld.
Advocate
: O R D E R :
No.5/27/08/12 HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Forum, Hooghly in case no.CC 134 of 2008 dismissing thereby the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank.
The case of the appellant/complainant, in short, is that he was the employee of M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and was working as Executive International Marketing. He was transferred to Dhaka on 27/05/2000. He opened NRI bank account with SBI, Dhaka Branch, Bangladesh and also NRI bank account with SBI, Kolkata.
Prior to opening this account he had NRI bank account with SBI, Chandannagore, Hooghly. He used to remit his salary through SBI, Dhaka to SBI, NRI Branch at 42C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Jeevan Sudha 3rd floor, Kolkata-700 071 and also to Chandannagore Branch. He used to deposit dollar with the Dhaka Branch which was credited to his bank account at Kolkata and Chandannagore. He always sent his amount of salary as a fixed deposit scheme. The complainant made so many transactions through his bank account until he was posted at Dhaka. He was again transferred from Dhaka to Patna and he left Dhaka on 14/04/04. On 27/11/06 the complainant received a letter from OP No.2 wherein it was stated that one credit was given to the complainant on 27/07/03 for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- while others were given on 20/08/03 in the form of three FCNB deposits for USD 1500, USD 1000 and USD 1000. When the said letter was sent by OP No.2 the complainant was out of Kolkata and the said letter was delayed communication to him. On 30/03/07 the OP No.2 sent a threatening letter to the complainant for recovery of double paid amount of Rs.1,60,000/- through Indian High Commission or police without approaching any negotiation for amicable settlement. On 25/04/07 the complainant sent a letter to the OP No.2 stating that he intended to know how the OP determined that excess amount was credited to his account by mistake and requested them to let him know how the amount was claimed. By letter dated 02/06/07 the complainant wrote a letter to OP No.2 stating that he might have withdrawn excess amount of Rs.1,60,000/- mistakenly credited to his account by the bank and the complainant requested the OP No.2 that such a big amount was not available then to him and he intended to pay the entire amount by instalments @ Rs.2,000/- per month with initial payment of Rs.25,000/- and assuring the OP No.2 the entire amount will be paid within one year. On 04/09/07 the OP No.2 informed that the bank was not accepting the proposal of the complainant for instalment and stated that if the entire amount was not paid within seven days they would proceed as per recovery process. Under such circumstances, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the bank could not prove the basis of their claim and according to the RBI guidelines the bank was to settle such claim within 48 hours. It is contended that the complainant wrote the letter to the bank praying for instalment, but without verifying the basis of the claim of the bank. It is submitted that the complaint was earlier allowed by the Learned District Forum and on appeal it was sent back on remand to the Learned District Forum for adducing evidence by the parties and before the Learned District Forum after remand the complainant could not adduce evidence. It is contended that the Learned District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1991 CALCUTTA 181 [Sukumar Chakraborty Vs. Assistant Assessor-Collector and Ors.]; AIR 1967 ALLAHABAD 405 (V 54 C 120) [Shankar Lal and Anr. Vs. Narendra Bahadur Tandon].
The Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant admitted that there was double payment and regarding the excess amount the complainant prayed for payment by way of instalments, but the bank did not agree to the proposal for instalments. It is submitted that subsequently bank issued letters claiming the amount as on date, but the complainant did not pay the amount.
It is clear that by virtue of letter dated 25/04/07 the complainant asked the bank to explain as to how they calculated the excess amount allegedly credited with his account by mistake. Thereafter on 14/08/07 the complainant informed the bank that he intended to pay the amount claimed by way of instalments @ Rs.2,000/- per month and further assuring to clear the dues within one year.
Thereafter on 04/09/07 the bank informed the complainant that unless the dues were not cleared within seven days of the receipt of the letter, they shall proceed according to recovery process.
On 21/07/08 the bank issued a letter through Learned Advocate to the complainant that unless the amount of Rs.3,33,905.72 plus interest upto date was paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter, they will take legal action.
From the above facts, it is clear that the complainant admitted the excess amount credited by the OP bank to his account and he prayed for payment by way of instalments @ Rs.2,000/- per month which the OP bank did not agree. Ultimately, the OP bank issued legal notice. From the above correspondences, entered into by and between the parties, it is clear that the bank gave sufficient time to the complainant to pay the amount claimed and as the complainant did not pay, the OP issued the legal notice. From the circumstances aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the bank. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal.
In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment is affirmed. We make no order as to costs.
MEMBER(SC) PRESIDENT