Date of filing:-08/11/2017.

Date of Order:-15/10/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B  A  R  G  A  R  H.

Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2017

            M.Rambabu, Son of Late M.Satyanarayan, aged about 40(forty) years, Occupation-Business, resident of, and P.o. Godbhaga Camp, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.

                                                                             .....              .....          .....         Complainant.

• V e r s u s -

1. State Bank of India, represented through its Branch Manager, Godbhaga Branch, At/Po. Godbhaga, Ps/Tahasil- Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
2. Branch Manager, U.Co Bank, Godbhaga Branch, represented through its Branch Manager, At/Po. Godbhaga, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh......        .....Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri S.K.Pati, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one):-     Sri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):-     Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with other Advocates.

-: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra       .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee             .....        .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.15/10/2018.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the case ;-

            The case of the Complainant is that, he being a customer of the Opposite Party No.1(one)’s Bank vide his Account No.35248869616,was operating his said Account having being facilitated with ATM Card/Debit card bearing No.6081 6000 0012 2115, in the process on Dt.21.07.2016 wanted to withdraw Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only and inserted his said card in the ATM Counter of the Opposite Party No.2(two) in Godbhaga Branch successively for fourth time but for first three time it did not disburse any amount but on the fourth time an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only was disbursed with him, he was disbursed with the said amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only, but his case is that on each three occasion also the amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only each have been shown to have been debited from his account though as said above all the three times no money was disbursed.

            There after he lodged a complain before the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also sent an intimation to the Opposite Party No. 2(two) for enquiry and report but he did not turn up the Opposite Party No.2(two) as such he served him with a Pleader Notice, and after a long gap on Dt.09.01.2017 intimated him and to the Opposite Party No.1(one) that he has reconciled his account but did not find any discrepancy, but in spite of that the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not refund his said excess debited amount with regard to those failed transaction so he requested them to refund the excess debited amount but they did not adhear to and ultimately on Dt.01.11.2017 the Opposite Party No.2(two) denied to take any action on the said incident for which he has under gone with a lot of mental agony and financial loss of Rs.30,069/-(Rupees thirty thousand sixty nine)only as the Opposite Party No.2(two) has debited an amount of Rs. 69/-(Rupees sixty nine)only for service charges in addition to the non disbursed amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only, thus the Complainant preferred to file the case claiming the same against both the Opposite Parties to refund the same debited amount along with compensation for his mental agony and litigation expenses and in support of his such claim has relied upon some following documents:-

1. Office copy of the Pleader Notice.
2. Original reply given by the U.Co Bank Godbhaga Branch on Dt.9.01.2017.
3. Original intimation given by S.B.I. Godbhaga Branch to U.Co Bank Godbhaga.

            On perusal of the complaint, documents and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Parties and in response to the same both of them appeared and filed their respective version separately.

            So far the averment made by the Opposite Party No.1(one), is an evasive one while admitting the Account part of the Complainant, it has denied the case of the Complainant as contrary to the facts on their record and has got no role to play in any manner since it was a transaction between the Opposite Party No.2(two) and the Complainant, and further more has contended that since no deficiencies in rendering service is claimed against him so he has got nothing to do with the matter and has admitted that he is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case.

            In furtherance to his averments has also clarified that since the Complainant has been issued with a cash credit loan for an amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only and was also issued with an ATM card  with the said sum and has with-drawn the amounts from the ATM Counter of the Opposite Party No.2(two) in four times successfully as have ascertained from the J.P.Log and has also claimed that they have ascertained the same matter from their head office concerned and the U.Co Bank ( Opposite Party No.2(two)) that there was no excess amount of cash on the relevant date as such he has got no deficiencies on his part as such prayed to dismiss the case against him.

            The Opposite Party No.2(two) has also filed his version separately, And so far as the averment made by him are all evasive to the case of the Complainant but at the same time has also admitted partly that the alleged information to the Opposite Party No.2(two) is correct, in furtherance to his averment has also admitted that on his inquiry it is found that there is only one transaction made by the Complainant vide No.2786(two seven eight six) Card No.6081 6000 0012 2115, and that has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only which was intimated to the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide letter No.BO/GODVAGA/73/2016-2017 on Dt.09.01.2017, and the allegation of deduction of an amount of Rs.69/-(Rupees sixty nine)only towards the charges for the said four time transaction as false one and also has claimed in his version that beside the said one transaction which was a successful one, as such he has not committed any negligence and is not liable for any action thereunder and has prayed to dismiss the case against him. And in support of his case has relied upon the following documents:-

1. ATM Journal of the relevant date and time i.e. Dt.21.07.2016 at 08.50. PM to 10.20 PM.
2. Statement of Account of ATM cash from Dt.21.07.2016 ( 9 sheets).
3. Cash Loading Status Dt.21.07.2016 and Dt.04.08.2016 with cash balance in denomination.(2 sheets).

            Having gone through the Complaint versions of the Opposite Parties and their respective documents, and on hearing on the counsels for the parties the following issues have come up for proper adjudication of the case,

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and whether any deficiencies in rendering service is there on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief as has been sought for  ?

            While dealing with the Issues No.1(one), delving deep in to the materials available in the record it reveals from the ATM journal filed by the Opposite Party No.2(two) that there has been only one transaction on the date and time of the alleged episode of transaction also it is clearly found that only an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only has been disbursed to the Complainant vide the transaction No.2786(two seven eight six) and Card No-6081 6000 0012 2115, and also it clearly reveals the authenticity of the same from the ATM journal filed by the Opposite Party No.2(two) that all other transaction made subsequently thereafter are of other card holder and also it proves the fact that the Complainant has been disbursed with only an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only but the parent Bank i.e. Opposite Party No.1(one) has debited another amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only, but on the contrary the Opposite Party No.1(one) has claimed in his version as well as in his arguments that all the transaction of the Complainant are successful and he has taken the entire amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only, and to that effect it reveals from the documents of the Opposite Party No.2(two) the Admin Balance is intact as Rs.22,98,100/-(Rupees twenty two lakh ninety eight thousand one hundred)only after the withdrawal of the Complainant for an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only and the other three transaction are done by some other card holder vide their own card having different Card Number, so now it can be safely deducted that the Complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only but the Opposite Party No.1(one) has debited an excess amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only from the account of the Complainant, more over it was the duty and responsibility of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to ask for CCTV camera footage or should have inquired by any other system to ascertain the fact if at all claims to have been withdrawn by the Complainant instead of debiting the excess amount from his account after getting information about the alleged transaction, which he has not done so, as such simply denying the claim of the Complainant is not tenable in the eye of law, in as much as, such an action of the Opposite Party No.1(one) amounts to deficiencies of service on it’s part as such is liable there under, and accordingly our view is expressed in favor of the Complainant and we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is very much committed an unfair means to repudiate the claims of the Complainant.

            Thirdly with regard to the claims of the Complainant, as we have examined all the relevant documents available in the record and after hearing the counsels of the parties we have already expressed our opinion against the Opposite Party No.1(one), now it is obvious upon us to express our opion in favor of the complainant ,thus our order follows .

O  R  D  E  R

            Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to credit the said amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only with interest @ 7%(seven percent) per annum from the date of filing of this case till the date order and also directed to credit an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only  in lieu of compensation towards his mental and financial harassment and an amount of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only in lieu of litigation expenses to the Complainant within thirty days from receipt of the order in default of which the entire amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till the actual date of realization of the same.

            Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and since there is no materials against the Opposite Party No.2(two), is exonerated from any liability, accordingly the case is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt 15.10.2018.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                                and corrected by me.              

                                                                                           ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                                                                                                    P r e s i d e n t.     

                                I agree,                   

                   ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                          M e m b e r (W)

           Uploaded by

       Office Assistant,

District CDR Commission,

              Bargarh.