State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager State Bank Of India ... vs Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Kumari on 1 September, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESs
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.346/2019
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.261/218 ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD
Between
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India (PBB),
S.P. Road.
Secunderabad -500003. .Appellant/Opposite Party
And
Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Kumari,
W/o. Sri T.Vinod Kumar,
Age 65 years,
R/o. H.No.1-8-4508/1/A22,
Indian Air Lines Employees Colony,
Police Line, S.P. Road.
Secunderabad -500003. ..Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party:
M/s.Vamaraju
Srikrishnudu
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Kumari
(PIP)
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER
& HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY Two ******* (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.Rajeshree, Member-Non Judicial) Order
1. This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred by the Opposite party aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission -III, Hyderabad in C.C.No.261/2018 by order dated 24-04-2019 by allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- to be payable within thirty days. Failing which an interest 7% would be applicable.
2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the complaint before the District Consumer Commission.
3. The grievance of the complainant in brief is that, she beino a senior citizen and having retired as Additional Director, Medical & Health Services, Hyderabad had faced untold misery and trauma due to the deficient acts of the Opposite Party and that on 16-05 2018 when she approached the Opposite Party at about 11-00 A.M., to obtain a DD, For a sum of Rs.19,000/- in favour of Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davanagere in Karnataka, when she submitted her form for DD she was advised to wait for 45 minutes as the server was down and that after a wait of 15-20 minutes she was informed to take the DD from another branch as the signing authority was not available and that the situation would continue for another two days, due to said act of the Opposite Party she had to travel around one Km., in hot sun to the other branch of Opposite Party i.e., at Chikoti Gardens, Begumpet which had resulted in causing her health issues and the exposure to sun had put her on medication, as she had faced this inconvenience, on 16- 05-2018 she has given a written complaint to Deputy General Manager, SBI., Hyderabad head office to investigate into the matter and the copy was personally served on the Branch Manager of Opposite Party. Having waited for reasonable time as a there was no reply from the Opposite Party, on 29.05.2018 she sent a again had reminder requesting the status of her which on 05.06.2018 she received complaint, due to a reply from Opposite Party apologizing the inconvenience caused but the for was "Technical Problem explanation given with the draft issuing printer" and that the same was rectified in the evening, the said reason given in reply letter contradicts to the reason given at the Branch on 16.05.2018. As such, she was not convinced with the reasons given by the Opposite Party.
4. Secondly, on 29.05.2018 when she had deposited of Rs.1,00,000/- of her another cheque a account i.e., Andhra Bank into her Opposite Party Bank account the same was dishonoured and she had received a message to that effect.
Apart from that a sum of Rs.177/- was debited from her account as dishonour she was charges, as out of station she informed her husband (Mr.T.Vinod Kumar) to look into the matter, when he visited the Branch and sought for clarification the person informed that they would look 3 into the matter and on 04-06-2018 evening the complainant again received a message stating that, Rs.1,00,000/- has been credited account and the Rs. 177/- that was debited was reversed and re-credited to her account. Had her husband not visited the branch the same would have been lying in a dishonoured state and that she is a customer of the Opposite Party from past 25 years and has deposits up to Rs.37 Lakhs in the said branch. But the services provided by the Opposite Party were so deficient and as the Opposite Party failed to resolve the issue when communicated through letters she was compelled to approach the Consumer Commission.
5. The Opposite Party while admitting that the DD could not be issued to the complainant on the said date i.e., 16.05.2018 had opposed the complaint stating that, the same was not issued due to some technical connectivity problem with the draft printer as such the draft could not be issue to the complainant and as the rectification of the problem would take too long, the bank has advised the complainant to approach any nearby branch in the interest of the complainant and that the technical staff had rectified the problem on the same day by around 4-00 p.m., as such non-issuing of the D.D was not intentional but for the above said reason.
6. And the cheque bounce for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the dishonor charges of Rs. 177/- collected from the complainant was also not willful but due to connectivity failure and as the system automatically debits the dishonour charges, the charges were deducted om the complainant's account. This debit was done in late hours of 01.06.2018 as such, the mistake could not be noticed on same day, and on the very next working day i.e., 02.06.2018 after verification the dishonor charges of Rs.177/- were reversed back to the complainant's account and as 03.06.2018 was Sunday.
Only on 04.06.2018 the Opposite Party / Bank had credited the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- into the account of the complainant and that both these mistakes have occurred due to technical errors and operating system but not done intentionally. As such this Opposite Party / Bank is not liable for any deficiencies.
47. Before the District Forum the complainant filed evidence affidavit and produced documents Exs.A1 to A8 the opposite party filed their evidence afidavit and got marked Ex.B1 on their behalf.
8. After hearing both sides and upon perusal of material on record the learned District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite party as stated in Para No.1.
9. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Consumer Forum the opposite party preferred this appeal with a to set aside prayer the order of the District Commission and filed this appeal on the following grounds.
10. That the Hon'ble District Consumer Forum failed to consider the fact that there was a technical problem due to which the DD could not be issued to the complainant and that there was no willful act and that the same was not intentionally.
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum ought to have seen that, the complainant was advised to approach the other branch only in her interest and inorder to save her time.
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum ought to have seen that, the complainant had an option to obtain the DD from any other Bank other than the Opposite Party.
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum had erred in concluding that, the opposite party could have kept a stand by printer for convenience of customers. The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum failed to see that, the Opposite party had not collected any amount with dishonour of cheque, the amount regard to that was deducted by system error was reversed back to the account by the complainant, very next day.
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum without the facts of the case and considering without properly evidence on record had passed the appreciating the impugned orders.
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum
ought to have
dismisscd the complaint, as it is a frivolous and vexatious one.
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum failed to that the see complainant had not produced any document to show that she had to walk in hot sun to the other branch.
The Hon'ble District Consumer Forum failed to give any valid reasons in awarding the excessive and exorbitant compensation to the complainant.
11. The points that arisc for consideration are:
1. Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Consumer Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner?
2 To what relief ?
12 Point Nos.1 & 2: _The complainant has got two grievances firstly that, when she went to opposite party Bank to take a DD, she was made to sit for 45 minutes and after 45 minutes was informed that as the server is down, it is getting delayed. After waiting of another 15-20 minutes she was asked to go to another branch as the signing authority was not available, due to which she was compelled to walk in the hot sun for approximately 1 Km., to reach to the other branch i.e., at Chikoti Garden, Begumpet. Further as she being a senior citizen and had to walk for one km., in hot sun it has effected her health very badly and she was compelled to take self medication for the same.
The second grievance of the complainant is that when she had deposited a cheque of Rs. one Lakh of Andhra Bank of her own S/B account into the account maintained with the Opposite Party she received a message that the cheque was dishonoured and Rs.177/- was deducted from her account as dishonor charges and as she was out of station, through her husband when the same was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party / Bank after two days then the bank had immediately reversed the Rs.177/- to her account and the cheque was honoured only on 04.06.2020. This 6 attitude of the bank had not only casual type of negligent and and inconvenience also caused effected her health but had the District compelled to approach hardship a s such, she was and mental for physical sufferance Forum seeking compensation opposed the agony. On the other hand, the Opposite Party technical connectivity as there was a complaint on the ground that and a s it with draft printer the draft could not be issued problem the complainant was asked to go to would take time to rectify another nearest branch.
deduction of And with regard to the dishonor of cheque and that due to dishonor charges the Opposite Party had pleaded "connectivity failure" the cheque bounced and the system automatically debits the dishonor charges and as the said transaction took place at the end of office hours, the same could not be reversed back immediately and very next day the amount of Rs.177/- was credited back to the account of the complainant. And that none of the acts were intentional but due to the technical errors only.
Though the complainant had not proved that she was made to sit for 45 minutes and another 15-20 minutes, but the fact remains that on that specific day DD was not issued to the complainant and the Opposite Party themselves have stated that the technical problem was rectified at 4-00 p.m., in the evening.
Apart from that ex.A1 DD is the proof that the complainant had to take it from a different branch i.e., Chikoti Gardens, Begumpet Branch and ex.A2 8& A3 are the letters addressed by complainant to the Opposite Party / Bank and Dy. General Manager (Customer service) to which the Opposite Party / Bank had replied under Ex.A4 by apologizing the same.
In view of the above referred Exhibits and admitted facts, it can be concluded that the complainant was subjected to inconvenience and hardship Ex,No.A4 and A5 reveal that the cheque dishonored and dishonor was charges were deducted.
However under Ex.No.B1 the said Rs.177 was reversed back to the account of the complainant on very next day i.e., 02.06.2018 but the opposite party/bank though reverted the dishonor charges but failed to intimate the same to the complainant further it is only on 04.06.2018 when the complainants husband had visited the Dranch the opposite party/bank had credited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the complainant Ex.No.A8 is the proof of the same. This kind of negligent attitude is uncalled for from a nationalized bank that too, it being a PBB(Personal Banking Branch).
It is pertinent to mention here that when the matter came up before this commission for final hearing the husband of the complainant who is persuing the case has represented that "He is ready to forego the compensation awarded by the District Forum, provided an officer not less than the rank of a General Manager tenders an apology letter" for which the Appellant counsel sought time to get the same subsequently three adjournments were granted but the Appellant failed to get an apology letter on the vague grounds that the officials are being transferred.
This kind of careless attitude of the bank officials towards its customers certainly amounts to deficiency of service.
Therefore we are of the view that the Appellant/opposite party had been deficient in their services as such the complainant/respondent be suitably compensated.
However we feel that the compensation awarded by District Forum is too high, and it is not the case of the complainant that she had incurred certain expenditure for medication bu the compensation is being awarded for the inconvenience and hardship caused as such we are of the view that the same be modified as under.
13. Point No.3: In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Consumer Commission as under:
i. The Appellant / Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the Respondent / Complainant for the inconvenience, hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant.8
oflitigation.
ii. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- a s costs from the date of receipt of Time for compliance is 30 days this order.
sum of Rs.
In default, the complainant is entitled for another 20,000/- only.