Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/10/2327

CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL K DEHARIYA - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 2327 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 03.09.2010 passed in C.C. No. 61/2010 by the District Forum, Seoni)  

 

CANARA BANK BRANCH-SEONI.                                       …            APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

ANIL KUMAR DEHARIYA.                                                   …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

26.03.2016

 

         Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent.

           

As per Shri Subhash Jain : 

                      This is an appeal filed by the opposite party bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) against the order dated 03.09.2010 passed in C.C.No. 61/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seoni (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum’) whereby the complaint has been allowed.

2.                     Facts of the case in short are that the complainant (respondent herein) resident of Seoni went to Bhopal for appearing in examination where on 08.11.2009 he visited ATM of State Bank of India and tried to withdraw Rs.700/- but was unable to withdraw the said amount.  He again operated the ATM to know the balance amount in his account.  On the same day he visited ATM of Canara Bank and enquired the balance amount which showed Rs.4,590/-, he therefore tried to withdraw Rs.700/- but again he was unable to withdraw the said amount.  On 10.11.2009 when he came back to Seoni, he made a complaint to the appellant bank who in turn informed him balance amount Rs.90/- only.  The respondent therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs.4,590/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and compensation Rs.70,000/-.

3.                     The appellant resisted the complaint before the District Forum stating that the respondent operated the ATM of State Bank of India on 08.11.2009 and withdrawn Rs.4,500/- from his account and after withdrawing the said amount the balance remained

-2-

in his account only Rs.90/-.  Since the amount was withdrawn which reflects from the statement of account, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.    

3.                     The District Forum partly allowed the complaint directing appellant to refund Rs.4,500/-

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The respondent remained absent.  

5.                     Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with one document i.e. letter dated 23.08.2011 of State Bank of India HET Piplani Branch, Bhopal certifying that as per journal print/electronic journal print log the transaction no. 2042 dated 08.11.2009 for Rs.4500/- is a successful transaction and as per branch ATM replenishment-cum-cash verification records no excess amount of cash is found on 08.11.2009 in the ATM S1CC00051978.  This is same transaction which was carried out by the respondent and on the basis of JP log it clearly transpires that the said transaction was successful and the respondent withdrawn Rs.4,500/- through transaction no. 2042 on 08.11.2009.

6.                     On perusal of record we find that respondent has filed (C-1) an ATM Slip dated 08.11.2009 of ATM ID S1CC00051977 showing time 14.18 and available balance as Rs.4590/- and on the strength of this slip he tried to convince that there was balance of Rs.4590/- on 08.11.2009 but he did not file the slip from which the transaction remained successful.  From the document R-3 filed by the appellant it is clear that on 08.11.2009 at 14.19 from ATM ID S1CC00051978 Rs.4500/- has already been withdrawn from Account No. 1413108015588 showing available balance of Rs.90/-. From the said document it is crystal clear that on the same date i.e. 08.11.2009 immediately after one minute of the earlier transaction regarding to know the balance, from the other ATM having ID No. S1CC00051978 amount of Rs.4500/- has been withdrawn.  Similarly from the document filed by the appellant along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC it is clear that the transaction was successful and no excess amount was found in the said ATM.   The District Forum has not considered this point. In such circumstances we find that the transaction was successful and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank. 

-3-

7.                     In view of the above the impugned order cannot be sustained.  The District Forum has erred in partly allowing the complaint. The order of the District Forum is therefore set-aside.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  No order as to cost.