Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1231

PRABHU DAYAL KUSHWAHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                          

                                   

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 24.06.2013 passed in C. C. No.159/2012 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

PRABHUDAYAL KUSHWAHA,

S/O SHRI NARMADA PRASAD KUSHWAHA,

R/O QUARTER NO.3227 TYPE-B,

ORDINANCE FACTORY, TEHSIL-ITARSI,

DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                                                                      ….       APPELLANT.

 

                   Versus

 

AXIS BANK LIMITED,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

BRANCH OFFICE-GROUND FLOOR,

MEGHDOOT HOTEL, OPPOSITE REST HOUSE,

ITARSI, TEHSIL-ITARSI, DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                               ….    RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY               :  MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA         :   MEMBER

                                  

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                        Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.

                Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent.   

   

      

                                                        O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 10.10.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

                        This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.159/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

2.                The case of the complainant/appellant in brief is such that he had an account number 90010006894506 with the opposite party/

-2-

respondent-bank with ATM facility. It is alleged that since last one year there is a difference in balance amount of Rs.3722.01 between his account and ATM account. It is alleged that he repeatedly asked the opposite party-bank to correct the mistake but no heed was paid. He made a written complaint to the bank on 21.06.2012 thereafter he made a complaint on 22.07.2012 to Banking Lokpal. When Banking Lokpal also took no action, he filed a written complaint to Collector, Hoshangabad. The complainant therefore filed a complaint against the opposite party bank seeking direction to bank to credit an amount of Rs.3722.01 in his ATM balance, Rs.3,000/- expenses occurred in travelling, Rs.40,000/- towards physical distress, Rs.20,000/- towards tarnishing of social reputation totaling Rs.66,722.01 along with interest @ 18% p.a.

3.               The opposite party-bank resisted the complaint stating that there was no difference of amount in his account. On complaint being made, a new passbook was issued to him. In fact there is no difference between the account statement and the slip issued by the ATM. The complainant deliberately produced the copy of misprint passbook before the District Commission. The complainant did not produce the copy of account statement and copy of new passbook issued to him, it is a complainant’s malice. The opposite party-bank is a public financial institution that performs its functions smoothly.

-3-

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the amount shown in slip received from ATM is similar to R-1 produced by the opposite party-bank. Hence this appeal.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate the facts and evidence available on record. Appellant kept the amount safe with the opposite party-bank and the bank had admitted this fact that they had given misprint passbook. If there was a wrong entry of Rs.3722.01 then how, when and which circumstances, the mistake has occurred and when it was corrected. The opposite party-bank failed to give any such statement in its reply. The District Commission also did not consider this aspect that when the fact of misprint passbook was in the knowledge of the bank then why did not they correct the same well within time. The District Commission also failed to consider this fact that the bank had produced new statement after deducting disputed sum of Rs.3722.01 before the District Commission. The District Commission committed grave error in dismissing the complaint. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and appeal be allowed.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-bank supported the impugned order and argued that from the record, it is established that there was no difference in the account statement and in the

-4-

slip issued by the ATM. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on opposite party-bank’s part.

8.                We have gone through the record. The complainant has filed documents C-1 to C-7 along with his affidavit. The opposite party bank has filed documents R-1 along with affidavit of Manoj Jeena, Branch Head, Axis Bank, Itarsi. The Branch Head of the opposite party-bank deposed that on complaint being made by the complainant regarding difference in amount in his account, the branch had supplied him copy of statement of account and according to which, the amount shown in the account and in the slip issued by the ATM was the same. The complainant intentionally did not produce the copy of account statement. As there was no inequality or difference in the amount of his account, therefore, the Banking Lokpal also did not consider his complaint.

9.                From the detailed account statement (R-1) we do not find any difference in the amount as alleged by the complainant. The complainant totally based his complaint on misprint entry of the passbook. On complaint being made to the bank, the bank had provided him a copy of statement and a new passbook in which there is no difference. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the bank has committed deficiency in service.

 

-5-

10.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission after hearing parties and considering all aspects of the matter passed a well-reasoned order.  We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission calling interference in appeal.

11.              In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

   (A. K. Tiwari)       (Dr. Srikant Pandey)      (D. K. Shrivastava)     

     Presiding Member            Member                          Member