Date of filing:-18/08/2017.
Date of Order:-01/08/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 38 of 2017.
Dhansingh Rana, aged about 45(forty five) years, son of late Karunakar Rana, Occupation- Cultivation, R/o/Village- Jokhipali, Po. Jokhipali under Ps/Tahasil- Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh, Contact No. 9938575693. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Branch Manager, Sambalpur District Central Co-operative Bank, Bijepur Branch, Bijepur At/Po. Bijepur undr Ps/Tahasil, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.P. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri K. Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.01/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Fact of the case;-
The case of the Complainant is that an amount of Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand)only was deposited in his Account bearing No-18341, by virtue of a Crop Insurance for the year 20015-16, his further case is that he being pressurized by one Bichitra Sahu to withdraw some amount of money and repay his Loan, which he has taken from him against mortgage of his land, later on the Complainant came to know that the said Bichitra Sahu has withdrawn some amount from the said account of the Complainant by the help of the signed withdrawal form which he was having at the time of the loan was obtained by the Complainant, to which he objected before the Bank and as such the said Bichitra Sahu deposited the same with the Bank, which he could know from the duplicate Pass Book issued to him.
In furtherance to his case in the month of June-2017 the Complainant attempted to withdraw some amount of money from his said account and he was issued with a plastic token against his withdrawal voucher but physically he was denied with the disbursement of the amount with different pretext for months to-gather without assigning any reason for which he had to run to the bank leaving his personal work for which he suffered a lot, and ultimately on Dt.16.08.2017 he was refused by the bank authority for disbursement of his money saying that his account has been blocked and was asked not to come again, which in his view amounts to deficiencies of service on their part and the cause of action arose thereby on Dt.16.08.2017 and there after when he was harassed thereby the case was filed before the Forum claiming an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only along with the amount deposited in his account for which he has applied. And in support of his case has relied on the Pass Book of the bank issued in his favor and the concerned token which was issued to him against his withdrawal slip.
On perusal of the Complaint, the documents and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party to appear and in response the Opposite Party appeared and filed his version.
The rival contention of the Opposite Party is an evasive one, with a plea of having no knowledge of the complain made against him as to whether any person has ever given loan to him or he has ever withdrawal some amount from the bank in the name of the Complainant or has ever redeposited the same in the account of the Complainant and that he has applied before the bank for withdrawal of some amount and against that though token was issued to him but denied to make payment saying that his account has been blocked and has contended that these are all false and fabricated one.
In his reply the Opposite Party has contended that the Complainant has an account in their bank vide S.B.D No-18341.and an amount of Rs.38,818.40/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand eight hundred eighteen and forty paise)only was in his balance and out of which he has withdrawn Rs.33,000/-(Rupees thirty three thousand)only on Dt.21.02.2017 and Rs.4,800/-(Rupees four thousand eight hundred)only on Dt.23.02.2017 leaving Rs.1,018.40/-(Rupees one thousand eighteen and forty paise)only in his balance in his account.
In furtherance to his reply the Opposite Party has contended that he has not committed any deficient action nor got any prior acquaintance with the Complainant, rather he has credited an amount of Rs.1,17,494.18/-(Rupees one lakh seventeen thousand four hundred ninety four and eighteen paise)only in the account of the Complainant which was sanctioned under the prime minister’s Fasal Bima Yojana for kharif 2016 on Dt.21.08.2017 and has credited an amount of Rs.279/-(Rupees two hundred seventy nine)only towards the interest in his said account on Dt.31.03.2017, and also has claimed that there is no deposit of Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand)only any time in his account and hence the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the case against him.
Having gone through the Complaint, the supporting documents filed by the Complainant and the version filed by the Opposite Party the following issues have cropped up before us for proper adjudication of the case.
Whether the Opposite Party has committed deficiencies in rendering service towards the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed for ?
While adjudicating the Issues No.1(one) as to whether the Opposite Party has committed deficiencies in rendering service towards the Complainant, with utmost care we examined the materials available in the record it came to our notice that it is very common policy of the Banking institution that any body can deposit any amount in the account of anybody but while withdrawing the same it is the person in whose name such account is operating can only withdraw the same or an authorized person or anybody with an authorized cheque holder can withdraw any entrusted amount, so the allegation with regard to withdrawal of an amount of Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand)only being authorized by the Complainant in the withdrawal slip has got no role to play with the same, and the loan obtained by the Complainant from some person namely Bichitra Sahu on his own has got no nexus with the banking transaction, And so far the denial of the Bank concern to disburse the withdrawal amount even after token to that effect is issued is strictly denied by the Opposite Party in turn rather the Opposite Party has contended that it has credited the prime minister’s Fasal Bima Yojana amounting to Rs.1,17,494/-(Rupees one lakh seventeen thousand four hundred ninety four)only on receipt of the same in the account of the Complainant on Dt.21.08.2017 and also credited the interest of Rs.279/(Rupees two hundred seventy nine)only on Dt.31.03.2017 on it’s own which has not been disclosed by the Complainant which amounts to suppression of materials facts by the Complainant and in the absence of any cogent prove with regard to any motive in harassment made by the Opposite Party is not tenable in the eye of law, further more it has been clarified by the Opposite Party in it’s version that there was a balance of an amount of Rs.38,818.40/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand eight hundred eighteen)only. In the said account of the Complainant on Dt.31.01.2017 out of which he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.33,000/-(Rupees thirty three thousand)only on Dt.21.02.2017 and Rs.4,800/-(Rupees four thousand eight hundred)only on Dt.23.02.2017 leaving an amount of Rs.1,018.40/-(Rupees one thousand eighteen and forty paise)only as balance in his account and that the allegation of the Complainant that the withdrawal of some amount saying as his account has been blocked is also not supported by any cogent documents or any evidence to that effect and from the conduct of the Opposite Party in dealing with the account of the Complainant it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party has got no deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant as such our answer in the issue is expressed against the Complainant and the Opposite Party is not at all liable there under.
Secondly while dealing with the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to any compensation, as we have already discussed in details of the case in our foregoing paragraph and have opined against the Complainant, it is pertinent to mention here that the Complainant has measurably failed to prove his case against the Opposite Party, hence our view is expressed accordingly against the Complainant. Hence the Order follows.
O R D E R.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the Complaint of the Complainant is dismissed against the Opposite Party being devoid of merit and the same is pronounced in the open Forum on Dt. 01/08/2018 and the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
