IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 215/2011 (Filedon 03.11.2011)
Between:
Kunjukunju Joseph,
Mudanakuzhiyil Veedu,
Puthusseri South,
Puthusseri, Pathanamthitta Dist. … Complainant.
And:
The Branch Manager,
Federal Bank Ltd.,
Puramattom Branch,
Pin – 689 543.
(By Adv. P.D. Varghese) … Opposite party.
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: On 30.06.2003 onwards, complainant had a bank account with the opposite party bank and he operates the said account for his transactions. In the year 2007, he converted his single account into a joint account by including his wife Smt. Mariyamma Joseph as his joint account holder. The wife of the complainant is not well to present before the bank and so he is usually operating the account for and on behalf of his wife also.
3. Complainant usually operated the account and the passbook has been updated by the bank when it was presented there. After February 2011, complainant went to the opposite party for encashing a cheque on 03.10.2011 and at that time the opposite party updated the previous transactions in the passbook. Thereafter, when the complainant verified the transactions in the passbook, he realized from the entries that somebody had withdrawn ` 7,000 on 22.03.2011. He informed the matter before the opposite party on 04.10.2011 and he approached personally before the opposite party on 07.10.2011. But his grievance was not redressed by the opposite party. Lastly on 13.10.2011, the complainant issued a notice also to the opposite party. The complainant’s allegation is that somebody had withdrawn ` 7,000 from his account without his knowledge. But the opposite party never taken any earnest steps for the redressal of the complainant’s grievance inspite of his request for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 7,000 which was unauthorisedly withdrawn from his account and for realizing `.5,000 as cost for this proceedings.
4. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Their contention is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegation leveled against the opposite party by the complainant is in civil nature and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
5. They admit that the complainant and his wife is maintaining a joint account with them. The account is usually operated by the complainant. He usually makes withdrawals by using withdrawal slips, since he had not issued cheque leaves. They further contended that the complainant had withdrawn ` 7,000 on 03.02.2011, ` 7,000 on 22.03.2011, ` 10,000 on 13.01.2011 and ` 50,000 on 15.10.2011 by using withdrawal forms. On all these occasions, the complainant personally came to the bank and filled up entries in the withdrawal form in his own hand writing. The complainant came to the branch in person on 22.03.201 and had withdrawn ` 7,000 as stated above. The entries in the withdrawal form are filled by him in his own handwriting and he himself had put signature in it. Thereafter the complainant came to the bank on 04.10.2011 and raised a complaint that he was not withdrawn ` 7,000 on 22.03.2011. The bank authorities clearly explained the matter by showing the withdrawal forms and his signature. Even after that the complainant refused to accept the explanations given by the opposite party.
6. The opposite party admitted that they had received a notice and the opposite party sent reply for the same. The opposite party further states that the complainant has not sustained any loss or injuries due to the acts of the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service. So they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their costs.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 and Exts. B1 to B8. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
9. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that he and his wife is having joint account with the opposite party bank. Due to the illness of the complainant’s wife, complainant alone is operating the account. After February 2011, complainant went to the opposite party for encashing a cheque and at that time, they updated the previous transactions in the passbook. Thereafter, when he verified the passbook, he found a withdrawal of ` 7,000 on 22.03.2011. According to him, he has not made such a withdrawal and the said withdrawal is without his knowledge by someone else. He informed the matter to the bank authorities and they assured that they will take appropriate steps. But the opposite party never taken any steps in this regard inspite of his oral and written complaints.
10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and 3 documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the copy of the passbook of his savings bank account. Ext. A2 is the copy of notice issued to the opposite party. Ext. A2(a) is the postal receipt of Ext. A2. Ext. A3 is the cheque book issued to the complainant by the opposite party.
11. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the dispute is of civil nature. They further contended that the complainant had withdrawned ` 7,000 on 03.02.2011, ` 7,000 on 22.03.2011, ` 10,000 on 13.01.2011 and ` 50,000 on 15.10.2011 by using withdrawal forms. On all these occasions, the complainant personally came to the bank and filled up the entries in the withdrawal form in his own hand writing. The complainant came to the branch in person on 22.03.2011 and had withdraw ` 7,000 as stated above. The entries in the withdrawal form are filled by him in his own hand writing with his signature. All the withdrawal forms including the disputed withdrawal are in similar nature written by the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
12. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, the opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 8 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. B1 to B8. Ext. B1 is the attested copy of Account Opening Form. Ext. B2 is the withdrawal form No. 937752 dated 15.09.2008. Ext. B3 is the withdrawal form No. 918320 dated 13.01.2011. Ext. B4 is the withdrawal form No. 409528 dated 03.02.2011. Ext. B5 is withdrawal form No.922799 dated 22.03.2011, Ext. B6 is the withdrawal form No. 560572 dated 22.01.2009, Ext. B7 is the withdrawal form No. 918756 dated 20.12.2010 and Ext. B8 is the withdrawal form No. 433370 dated 15.10.2011.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the withdraw dated 22.03.2011 of ` 7,000 seen in the account of the complainant. According to the complainant, the said withdrawal is not made by him and it was made by someone else without his knowledge. On the other hand, opposite party’s contention is that all withdrawals are made by the complainant by using withdrawal forms duly filled by the complainant himself.
14. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, we have examined and compared the withdrawal forms used by the complainant which was produced and marked as Exts. B2 to B8. On the examination, the signature and hand writing in all the withdrawal forms are found similar in nature. We cannot find any difference between the disputed withdrawal form dated 22.03.2011, which is marked as Ext6. B5, and the other withdrawal forms which are marked as Exts. B2 to B4 and Exts. B6 to B8. In the cross examination of PW1, he admits that the withdrawal forms shown to him are written and signed by him. The relevant portions of deposition is as follows:
“Ct¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨ 13.01.2011-þse 10,000/þ cq]-bpsS withdrawal form sebpw, 03.02.2011-þse 7,000/þ cq]-bpsS withdrawal form sebpw, 22.03.2011-þse 7,000/þ cq]-bpsS withdrawal form sebpw H¸p-IÄ Ftâ-Xm-Wv“. Thus he admitted the disputed withdrawal form as his own. Since he had admitted the above said withdrawal form, we cannot find any misappropriation by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. In the circumstances, we find no irregularity or deficiency of service against the opposite party.
15. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of April, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar(Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Kunjukunju Joseph.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of passbook.
A2 : Copy of notice issued to the opposite party by the complaint.
A2(a) : Postal receipt of Ext. A2.
A3 : Cheque book issued to the complainant by the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : V.I. Tom.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Copy of Account Opening Form dated 18.09.1989.
B2 : Withdrawal form No. 937752 dated 15.09.2008 for ` 8,000.
B3 : Withdrawal form No. 918320 dated 13.01.2011 for ` 10,000.
B4 : Withdrawal form No. 409528 dated 03.02.2011 for ` 7,000.
B5 : Withdrawal form No.922799 dated 22.03.2011 for ` 7,000.
B6 : Withdrawal form No. 560572 dated 22.01.2009 for ` 7,000.
B7 : Withdrawal form No. 918756 dated 20.12.2010 for ` 7,000.
B8 : Withdrawal form No. 433370 dated 15.10.2011 for ` 50,000.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Kunjukunju Joseph, Mudanakuzhiyil Veedu,
Puthusseri South, Puthusseri, Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) The Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd.,
Puramattom Branch, Pin – 689 543.
(3) The Stock File.
