Orissa

Nuapada

CC/18/2017

Laxmi Narayan Sahu, aged about 28 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Bhawanipatna, Central Co-operative Bank LTD, Branch-Khariar Road - Opp.Party(s)

D.D.Sahu

09 Aug 2019

ORDER

In the matter of complaint petition U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

 

The factual matrix of the case is that:- 

          The complainant is a consumer of Opposite Party No.1 having Savings Bank Passbook Account No. 009053039911with ATM Card.  The complainant was Rs.77,857/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand eight hundred fifty seven) in his passbook on 29.5.2017 and on the very day he withdrawn of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) from SBI ATM Khariar Road (Opposite Party No.2) as there is no ATM of the Bank of Opposite Party No.1.  Thereafter the complainant went to Opposite Party No.1 to up-to-date his passbook and he came to knew on 29.5.2017 that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) was debited from his account and again Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) was reversed to his account  and the rest amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) has not been credited to the account of the complainant as yet for which the complainant orally complained the matter before the Opposite Parties frequently and lastly on 10.8.2017 he complained in written before the Opposite Parties but they did not respond to him for which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassed due to negligence and deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties and as such the complainant claims for relief’s as prayed for.

          The complainant has filed the documents in support of his claims as under :- 

1)    Attested true copy of complaint petition received by Opposite Party No.1 from complainant on 10.8.2017as (Annexure-1).

2)    Attested true copy of Saving Bank Passbook vide Account No. 009053039911 along with statement of accounts issued by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of complainant as (Annexure-2, 2/1 & 2/2).

          Being noticed, Opposite Party No. 1 appeared through their advocate and filed their written version and challenged the complaint of complainant in this case.  Opposite Party No.1 has also filed the documents in support of his claims as under :-

A)   Statement of accounts from 27.5.2017 to 31.5.2017 of Account No. 009053039911 (1 Sheet) dt. 22.02.2018 as (Annexure-A).

B)   Xerox copy of transaction details report as on 29.5.2017 (6 Sheets) dated 20.02.2018 as (Annexure-B to B/5).

 

 

          After received the notice, Opposite Party No.2 has appeared through their advocate and filed their written version and challenged the complaint of complainant in this case.  Opposite Party No.2 has not filed any documents in this case. 

 

          In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-

I)             Is there any cause of action in this case  ?

II)           Whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties  ?

III)          To what relief, the complainant is entitled to  ?

            ISSUE No.I & II.

          The issues are jointly discussion and findings.

          On perusal of case record as well as the documents filed by the complainant and Opposite Party No.1, it is found that the complainant is an account holder of Opposite Party No.1 and on 29.5.2017 an amount of Rs.77,857/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand eight hundred fifty seven) was in the account of complainant and on the very day he withdrawn of Rs.20,000/- from SBI ATM Khariar Road (Opposite Party No.2) as there is no ATM of the Bank of Opposite Party No.1 and thereafter the complainant went to Opposite Party No.1 to up-to-date his passbook and he knew that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) has been debited from his account and again Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) has been reversed to his account and the rest amount of Rs. 20,000/- has not been credited to the account of complainant as yet as the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant for which the complainant lodged a written complaint before the Opposite Party No.1 on 10.8.2017 and on the very day Opposite Party No.1 has received the complaint from the complainant as per Annexure-1 but he failed to credit the same to the account of complainant as yet.

          In such an uncongenial situation and without any option, the complainant knocked the door of this Forum.

          Further it is seen that once received the complaint by Opposite Party No.1 from complainant, it is the duty of Opposite Party No.1 to verify the matter and to collect the CCTV Footage from Opposite Party No.2 and he should preserve the same to clarify the complainant on his complaint as the complaint is within the limitation and there is cause of action.

          But here, Opposite Party No.1 has failed to give proper service to the complainant as yet which is squarely absurd by him.

          In another factual aspect is that, the complainant is not an account holder of Opposite Party No. 2 and there is no any documents against the Opposite Party No. 2 that the complainant raised objection on the same before Opposite Party No. 2 and as such Opposite Party No.2 is not liable in this case.

          In another point is that Opposite Party No.1 has not filed any CCTV Footage to prove that the complainant has withdrawn the said amount from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 on the very day.

          So, the plea of Opposite Party No.1 is unbelievable and it is evasive and Opposite Party No.1 has failed to prove in this case.

          Here, we quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES .. Vrs… BALBIR SINGH, that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer as to be taken into consideration while compensating him in the loss of injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider.

          In further, the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, is an addition and not in derogation of any other law.

 

 

          Supporting to the all above findings, we again quote an another most vital decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in his Revision Petition No.3369 of 2014, “TN RAVI PRAKASH  V/s..  THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, decided on 08.06.2018.

          Perused the documents of the complainant as well as the documents of Opposite Party No.1 and basing on that we found that the claim of complainant is justified and relevant and as such taken in consideration.

          In the above case, the advocate for complainant as well as the advocate for Opposite Parties have argued in support of their claim.

          Here, we assessed that the complainant is a consumer of Opposite Party No.1.  As such it is the duty of Opposite Party No.1 to provide proper service and proper information to the complainant in time.  But here, Opposite Party No.1 failed to do the same in this case. 

Hence, it is apparent from the above issues that there is a deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.1 as not attending properly to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant  is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.1.

          So, we are of considered opinion that there is a deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.1.  Thus, Opposite Party No.1 is liable for deficiency in service.

          Accordingly, the issues answered and goes in favour of the complainant.

          ISSUE No.III.

          It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case.  Hence order.

 

                                      O R D E R.

              In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below :-

1)    We direct the Opposite Party No. 1 to credit the amount of               Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) in the account of complainant along with interest @ 9% (Nine percent) per annum from 29.05.2017 till payment within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order.

2)    We further direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to the complainant as compensation towards financial loss and mental agony and further pay as Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) towards litigation cost within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order.

3)    Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty  to take steps as per process of law.

          Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the  9th     day of  August 2019.