For the Complainant:   Smt. Anita Tewary, Advocate

For O.P.                   :   Sri Dipu Laskar, Advocate

                                     Order No.17  Dt.  25.03.2015

          This is the case for the complaint u/s 12 of  C.P. Act’ 1986, filed by Prafulla Kumar Bera being a resident of Vivekananda Pally and P.O. & P.S. Gazole of Malda District against Axis Bank Ltd., Malda, for wrong entry of money figure in his account and praying for relief through refund of money and compensation.

          The further text of the case is that the complainant having a Savings Bank Account in the O.P. /Bank deposited Rs. 30,000/- in Gazole A.T.M.  of the Bank through three envelopes dividing as Rs.22000/-, Rs.4000/-  and Rs. 4000/-  as per norms of Bank but the Bank credited Rs. 22000/- in total comprising of Rs. 14000/-, Rs.4000/- and Rs.4000/-  as per three envelopes and hence, he suffered a loss of Rs.8000/- in money and hence filed this case for redressal.

          Respondent O.P. – The Manager Axis Bank Ltd., Malda Branch, contested the case filing written version denying the allegations for the same being fabricated and for suppression of material facts prayed for dismissal of the case with cost to the petitioner as there is no deficiency of service on their part. The O.P. submitted that as per depositing of money in three envelopes on 09.03.2014, they as per the Bank norms opened the envelopes on the day next and found that the second and the third envelope had the amount of money of Rs.4000/- each as per description by the depositor on the envelopes but the first envelope on opening as per Bank norms had difference between the description of money figure over the envelope with the amount of money found inside the envelope and the actual amount of money was found to be Rs.14000/-  instead of Rs. 22000/- written over envelope as Rs.22000/- and stated that they contacted the concerned person over phone for the anomaly and for his immediate presence in the Bank  and thereafter sending a letter on 11.03.2014 stating the mismatching fact and call for his appearance. They also mentioned that the person did not pay heed to their call and notice and appear in Bank after 18 days of the event that is on 27.03.2014. They also clarified the status of ATM prints and the system of their opening of money-led envelopes deposited by account holders and also there is a notification over envelope for the verification of deposit   by the Bank Staff which is compulsory for the depositor to know for willful deposition accordingly and thus the process of  putting closed envelope into ATM is as per option of the depositor and it is Bank’s norm to make a call to the depositors registered telephone number which they did so regarding the discrepancy but the depositor did not respond to the urgent call but appeared after 18 days and therefore there is no deficiency of service towards the petition by the O.Ps and O Ps humbly prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs for the ends of justice.

On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-

1. Whether the case 27/2014 is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

;:DECISION WITH REASONS::

Issue Nos. 1,2,3 & 4

            All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.

           In support of his case the petitioner depose as P.W.-1, adduced five exhibits marked as Ext. 1 to Ext. 5 of which all the exhibits are xerox copy of receipts dt.09.03.2014 (Ext. -1), Bank Envelope (Ext.-2), Bank Statement (Ext.-3), Copy of Pass Book (Ext.-4), and copy of letter from the respondent (Ext.- 5). The petitioner while cross-examined, stated he did ATM work for money deposit with the help of Priyanka Bera, her daughter. He also said though he instructed security to operate ATM machine but he himself did the envelope task without the knowledge of the security guard. He further stated that he received a telephone call on his phone from Bank on the following day of the deposit asking him to visit Bank and came to know about money discrepancy regarding his deposit in ATM but he did not comply for personal work but had to Bank after receiving notice from Bank after 7/ 8 days of transaction and after checking Pass Book he found entry of Rs. 14000/- in his account instead of Rs. 22000/- as per the deposited first envelope but did not file any complaint to Bank Authority for that instead filed this case. He categorically mentioned he is not aware why Bank served notice on him though he got the same information over telephone and also said he did not notice about what is written over the envelope before doing the transaction and he agreed to bring daughter Priyanka Bera for deposition in this case and also wanted to call Security Guard as witness.

          Priyanka Bera deposed as PW-2 and said she entered to the Gazole ATM on 09.03.2014 with his father and one Asim Roy wherein guard was there and his father taking envelopes from the Guard counted the money before them and thereafter she filled up the said envelopes. She also mentioned about 14 nos of denominations of 1000 Rupee Notes, 16 Nos. of denomination of 500 Rupee Notes and 80 Nos. of denomination of 100 Rupee Notes which were there and thus filled up 2 Nos envelopes for 40 x 100 = Rs. 4000/- each and an envelope for 14 X 1000 = Rs. 14000/-  plus 16 x 500 = Rs.8000/-  totaling Rs. 22000/- in the third envelope and after writing of the same her father put the currency in the envelopes after counting and sealed the same by gum of the envelope. She consented to her father’s Kolkata trip, receiving a letter from Bank and his father’s rushing to the Bank thereafter and being awared of the amount of the deposited money. 

          Pradip Kumar Goswami as O.P.W.-1 deposed in the Forum agreeing to the appearance of Prafulla Kr. Bera, his depositing money in ATM through three envelopes but denied the presence of any one with Prafulla Kumar Bera in ATM Counter and said about CC Camera Records and CD records of the footage to see for getting true report of the facts. He also mentioned that Prafulla Bera did not put his money into the deposit envelopes inside the ATM Counter.

          As O.P.W.-2, Soujanya Dutta filed affidavit and deposed before Forum. He is being Asst. Manager of Axis Bank Ltd, Malda Branch said about the system of their money depositing process and crediting in customers account and confirmed the difference between figures written over one envelope and the money put inside the envelope and for solving the anomaly they sent mobile message on 10.03.2014 and  a letter to the petitioner on the date of 11.03.2014 as per their norms. He uttered that the petitioner did not pay heed to their call and did not give his consent to them for depositing of Rs.14000/- as originally found and did not submit written request to view the CCTV footage and gave consent only on the 18^th day of the transaction for crediting the deposited money. He also said about the detailed procedures for the deposition of money through ATM, depositor’s acceptance of depositing norms, details of envelope opening money counting by Bank and their CC footage covering etc. and prayed for dismissal of the case as there is no deficiency on their part.

          This Forum perused all the documents filed by the parties and also heard the Ld. Counselors of both the petitioner as well as O.Ps. It appears that the petitioner received telephonic call from the O.P. Bank  on the next day of his transaction regarding the cropping up problem for difference in one envelope between the writing over the envelope and the contents i.e. the amount of money inside the envelope which was closed with by the petitioner using gum. Besides, the petitioner also received a letter regarding the same discrepancy on the day three i.e. on 12.03.2014 but the reality is that the petitioner remained inert for 17/18 days for the action which is inescapable particularly in the era of rapid modernization in monetary transactions through Bank for the question of equity, swift service and transparency and herein the petitioner failed miserably. Secondly, the petitioner nowhere, both in plaint and in affidavit does mention the name of her daughter accompanying him in the ATM Counter for the above transaction but in cross-examination the petitioner brought her daughter Priyanka Bera in picture and wished to have her deposition in case of requirement. He also said he put notes in the envelopes but his daughter filled up the envelopes whereas her daughter in the beginning position of cross-examination said that her father inserted money in envelope and she knew the amounts inserted but near the end at the time of questioning she said about each envelope mentioning how many notes and how many denominations were inside the envelopes but here also she categorically stated “Father could say about insertion of notes.” So her speaking about the amount of money for the three envelopes and her expressing about the insertion step for envelope appears to be dichotomous.  Besides, while P.W.-1 said about his non-noticing the noting (caution) of Bank earmarked on the envelope, her daughter P.W.2 said she can read and write and saw the noting of Bank over the envelope and understood the meaning of the last line writing there and thereby it is logical that P.W.-2 might convey the noting of the Bank which is an important message for a customer of Bank, to her father before his taking up the steps to use the advantage of ATM  money depositing in banking and therefore, it is highly probable that the petitioner agreed to the norms of the Bank and acted on his wish to accomplish the task but also the petitioner avoided the fullness of the bank system.

          Pradip Kr. Goswami, O.P.W.-1 in his examination stated that the petitioner Prafulla Kr. Bera came alone at the ATM Counter and this was not challenged.

          This Forum also noted the deposition of O.P.W-2 and his filling of document as Ext.–D and Mat Ext.-B. Through deposition, O.P.W.-2, from the picture of CCTV as MAT Ext.-B, he recognized himself and one Amitava Maitra though their faces were not discernible and further clarification regarding identity of the persons taking the task of counting money of the envelopes appeared but they are not asked to appear. While in cross-examination, O.P.W.-2 said about the running of ATM for six years but no question raised regarding the sanctity of the total ATM process particularly in respect of self-help money-deposit  steps and crediting the fund by bank as a new age tool, however, in case of challenge, a new scenario could have evoked regarding the Bank work for crediting fund into account holders account as it is a human endeavour outside the vision of the depositor  and can always come under question and who says it could not have called for utility of latest counting machine with total record both on ATM compartment at outside and Bank table at inside. Here also the petitioner failed to prove his case at the point of deficiency on the part of the O.P’s.

The Forum, looking into the case from the points of facts, documents and evidence, arrive at a judgment by reasoning that the petitioner failed to substantiate his complaint against O.P. Bank regarding their deficiency in service and thus this consumer claim case fails.

          Proper fee paid.

          Hence,                 ordered

that Malda D.F.C. Case No. 27/2014 is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.

          Let a copy of this order be given to each of the parties free of cost.