Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/49/2022

Arjun Digar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Annu Mishra

01 Apr 2023

ORDER

1. None turned up on behalf of both the parties on repeated call.  It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long, therefore, in the given facts as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.

 

2. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

 

3.   Complainant’s case in brief is that he is having savings bank account No. 471010100000237 in the Bank of India, Mamar Kudar Branch, Chas, Bokaro and on 10.03.2022 he issued a cheque of Rs. 7100/- in the name of Vijay Mahto but there was no payment to Vijay Mahto by the Bank. Further case is that on 14.03.2022 when complainant approached the local branch then branch Manager admitted that due to technical fault said amount has been paid in the loan account of the complainant which will be rectified. Further case is that loan of Rs. 17,000/- was obtained by the complainant by surrender value of LIC bond but due to deficiency in service by the Bank, complainant faced lot of trouble hence this case has been filed.

4. W.S. has been filed admitting the fact regarding mistake in operation of the account due to technical fault. Further reply is that the deduction of Rs. 7100/- was system generated, transaction verified on 09.03.2022 and it is without any human access, so there is no deficiency in service by the O.P. Further reply is that complainant never complaint to the O.P. about the matter after the clarification was given to him, hence it shows that clarification has been accepted by the complainant. Further reply is that loan amount has already been cleared and said account has been closed on 06.06.2022 accordingly no dues certificate has also been issued and LIC Policy has been released in favour of the complainant, it shows that complainant is satisfied with the service of the O.P. Further reply is that complainant is also maintaining other accounts with the O.P. and he has shown no any grievance in respect to other accounts.

5. Now we have to see whether there is intentional deficiency in service by the O.P. and whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed?

6. Fact related to maintenance of the several accounts in the bank of the O.P. is not in dispute. It is admitted by the O.P. that due to technical fault such type of mistake was occurred and O.P. has taken steps for its rectification. From perusal of the materials produced by the complainant it appears that there is no any material to show that O.P. has intentionally or negligently acted in this case. Other important aspect is that Vijay Mahto in whose name cheque was issued is having no grievance in this case nor he has approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance. Complainant is maintaining  other accounts with the O.P. with full satisfaction and this fact is also not in dispute. The loan account has already been closed after full payment and no dues certificate has also been issued by the O.P.,  this fact is also not in dispute. In the given facts we are of the view that there is cordial relationship between both the parties and complainant is not able to prove that there was intentional or negligent fault/ act on the part of O.P. rather on the other hand it is admitted fact that fault was due to some technical reasons related to defects in the software to which O.P. has tried to rectify and there is no any loss to the complainant due to the act of the O.P. It is also clear that amount has been transferred from one account to another account of the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed accordingly this case is being dismissed and parties shall bear their own costs.