IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/100/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
01.06.18 14.06.18 29.05.19
Complainant: 1.Bikash Mandal
S/O- Late Bhagirath Mondal,
Vill- Ishanpur, PO- Bill Colony,
PS- Nabagram,
Pin- 742184
2. Rina Haldar (mondal)
W/o Bikash Mondal
Vill- Ishanpur, PO- Bill Colony,
PS- Nabagram,
Pin- 742184
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, State Bank Of India,
Berhampore Branch
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant No.1 & 2 : Sri. Partha majumder.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Satinath Chandra.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Bikash Mandal and Another (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, State Bank of India (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant No 1 on 15.10.17 at 07.28 AM with an intention to transfer Rs.14,000/- to the account of his wife (Complainant No.2) used machine No. CDM2 attached with the office of the O P . The said amount was not successfully transferred to the account of the Complainant No.2 and the said sum also had not been returned by the machine CDM 2 to the Complainant No.1. At the very moment rather Rs.25/- was deducted by Duttafulia Branch from the account of the Complainant No. 2. though the said transaction was not successful. For this reason the Complainant No.2 suffered huge irreparable financial loss and injury. On 15.10.17, the Complainant No.1 lodged a written complaint before the O.P regarding this matter. On 09.11.17, the Complainant received a letter from the OP contending the statement that no excess cash found in CDM No.2 on that particular date and the deposited money has been taken after CDM shutter closed on notes removal. Being dissatisfied by the answer of the OP, the Complainants filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
After service of the notice, the OP filed written version, contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and after enquiry the OP collected online system generated EJ and whereby it clear that the said amount has been rejected by cash deposited machine. So, no negligence or deficiency is there on the part of the OP and as such the O.P prays for dismissal of the case.
Now the question arises whether the Complainants are the consumers and whether they are entitled to get relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Undoubtedly, the Complainants are the customers of different branches of the State Bank Of India so , the complainant No1 is the consumer of the O.P as per the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly, on 15.10.17, the Complainant No.1 with an intention to transfer Rs.14,000/- in the account of the OP No.2 used the CDM 2 of the OP. As per the petition of complaint, the said amount was not successfully transferred to the account of the Complainant No.2 nor the said amount was returned back by the said CDM 2 to the Complainant No.1 rather at that very moment, Rs.25/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant No.2 by Duttafulia Branch of the State Bank of India and the said amount of Rs.14,000/- was not transferred in the account of the Complainant No.2.
The O .P in the written version stated that as soon as the O.P got the complaint from the Complainant no 1 he started enquiry from all corners and the OP collected online system generated electronic journals (EJ) and from-where it is clear that notes of the said amount has been rejected by the said cash deposited machine. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the O.P draws our attention to the cash deposited machine (CDM) records which shows the every stage of transaction , date and time wise. As per the written version of the OP, that at the time of physical verification of CDM no excess cash was there inside a machine and as per EJ view, the deposited money has been taken after removal of the notes from the CDM and the same has been informed to the Complainant by issuing letter. Now the question which arises for consideration in this present complaint petition is as to whether the transaction was successful or not i.e. whether the Complainant No.1 received back the sum of Rs 14000/- or not and whether Rs.25/- has been deducted from the account of the Complainant No.2 and the said transaction was successful or not. As per EJ it is viewed that the deposited money has been taken after removal of the notes from the CDM. The Complainants had not submitted the copy of the pass book of the Complainant No 2 from where we can consider that Rs.25/- has been debited by the O.P Bank from the account of the Complainant No.2, for the use of the CDM though the money was not transferred to the account of the complainant No 2. But as per CDM records of the Bank i.e Electronic Journal ( EJ ) which is completely system generated documents proves rejection of notes by the machine deposited by the Complainant No.1 on that particular day (vide annex -1-3). It is not the fact that every person presumed to be a liar though machine normally does not speak lie but man may do so. Sometime machinery fails. In this present case as a civil matter, the Complainants have to prove their claims by providing proper evidence. Though the Ld. Advocate for the complainants at the time of argument stated that video footage is necessary for the proof of the case. But it is not the case of the complainants that the Complainant No 1 had not gone to deposit the money to the account of the Complainant No 2 through CDM of the O.P. Rather the allegation of the complainants is that the said deposited money was not transferred to the account of the Complainant No 2. We think that in this case video footage has no relevance at all as the camera in the ATM room is fixed only on the face of the user not on the keys of the machine and the delivery window. But perusing the Record it is clearly evident that no documents were filed and/or submitted by the Complainant at the time of filing of the instant case in support to prove the case that a deduction has been made by the O.P from the account of the complainant no 2. And no document is filled before us that the complainant No1 has lodged any complaint before the O.P regarding the said incident .
Considering the facts and circumstances and the documents filed before us and argument advanced by the respective Ld Advocates of both the parties , we are of the opinion that the complainants have not proved the case at all and is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and consequentially the points for consideration are decided in negative and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 01.06.18 and admitted on 14.06.18. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct, Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/100/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP but without cost. Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
