The case of the complainant Sri Siba Prasad Thander, in brief, is that he is a Teacher by profession and bonafide consumer of the O.P U.Co. Bank, Nanoor Branch, Birbhum. A joint S.B A/c. vide No. 07810110001165 along with his wife lying with the O.P Bank till today and the transaction was going smoothly.
It is the further case of the complainant that on 21.12.2015 at the time of updating the aforesaid pass book, complainant has come to know that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been withdrawn on 16.12.2015 from his aforesaid account by someone without the knowledge of the present complainant and the said amount was duly debited to the said S.B Account though neither the complainant nor his wife withdraw the same.
It is the further case of the complainant that he lodged written complaint to the O.P Bank on 21.12.2015 stating the fact thereof and requesting them to settle the matter. The O.P Bank arranged for hearing and it was found from the withdrawal slip that someone had signed as ‘SHIBA PRASAD THANDER’ twice as ‘SIBA PRASAD THANDER’ once.
It is the further case of the complainant that he always signs as ‘Siba Prasad Thander’ and said signature has been kept as specimen signature.
It is the next case of the complainant that the O.P Bank Manager also verified from CCTV in presence of the complainant that the complainant was not in the O.P’s Bank in withdrawal counter/bank premises on 16.12.2015.
It is the further case of the complainant that he drew attention of Zonal Mananger of Suri Zonal Office on 24.12.2015 for helping him but on 22.12.2015 by sending a letter informed him that requisite payment was made on utmost care and there was no mistake on their part.
The complainant served a legal notice upon the O.P Bank on 02.02.2016 but no consequence. The act of the O.P Bank is illegal, malafide and unfair trade practice which amounts to deficiency in service.
Hence, this case for directing the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 40000/- being withdrawal by other person with interest and compensation of Rs. 40000/- for mental agony and harassment with other reliefs.
The O.P Bank has contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.
It is the specific case of the O.P Bank that the fact remains that the alleged amount to the tune of Rs. 40000/- was withdrawn on 16.12.15 and again an amount to the tune of Rs. 5000/- on 18.12.2015 from the said account but no complaint was lodged or brought to the notice of the O.P by complainant.
It is the further case of the O.P Bank that SB A/c in question of the complainant is connected to his mobile No. and immediate message is forwarded to him regarding payment by the said system.
It is also the case of the O.P that the said amount of Rs. 40000/- was withdrawn on 16.12.2015 by depositing withdrawal slip but in case of withdraw of money by the withdrawal slip the customer is to deposit the passbook along with withdrawal slip which is mandatory and this bank employee cannot violate such provision and the claim of the complainant is not legal and genuine because of the fact passbook in question is / was in his custody.
It is the further case of the O.P Bank that from the withdrawal slip in question it reveals that at first the complainant put his signature as ‘Shiba Prasad Thander’ which was not in commensurate with specimen signature and as such he was requested for 2nd and 3rd time to put his signature again and it was compared with utmost care and the person was also smashed with the photograph attached with passbook and computer system by the concerned officer by the O.P Bank and then said amount of Rs. 40000/- was paid to the complainant after full satisfaction.
It is the next question of the O.P that it is amply clear that the complainant himself has withdrawn said money by putting his signature upon withdrawn slip and enjoyed the same and has filed the instant case for malafide intention.
The O.P Bank ultimately prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for determination.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
During the trial the complainant Siba Prasad Thander has examined himself as P.W.1 and he was cross examined by O.Ps. Some documents have been submitted by him. PW2 Ayan Kr. Dey as the Branch Manager, UCo Bank, Chandidas Nanoor Branch.
The O.P Bank filed evidence on affidavit of one Sourav Dey, Manager in Charge, O.P Bank but thereafter has not turned up and the complainant has got no opportunity for cross examination of the said witness and evidence of OPW1 Sourav Dey has no evidentiary value.
Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the both parties has been heard.
Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant has a S.B Account with the O.P Bank.
So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.
Point No.2:- O.P Bank has Branch Office at Nanoor, Birbhum within jurisdiction of this Forum.
The total valuation of the case is Rs. 90000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.
The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he is a Teacher by profession and bonafide consumer of the O.P U.Co. Bank, Nanoor Branch, Birbhum. A joint S.B A/c. vide No. 07810110001165 along with his wife lying with the O.P Bank.
Passbook in question shows that the complainant has joint account with his wife.
The complainant in his evidence further stated that on 21.12.2015 at the time of updating the aforesaid pass book, complainant has come to know that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been withdrawn on 16.12.2015 from his aforesaid account by someone without the knowledge of the present complainant and the said amount was duly debited to the said S.B Account though neither the complainant nor his wife withdraw the same. The complainant lodged written complaint to the O.P Bank on 21.12.2016 stating the fact thereof and requesting them to settle the matter. The O.P Bank arranged for hearing and it was found from the withdrawal slip that someone had signed as ‘SHIBA PRASAD THANDER’ twice as ‘SIBA PRASAD THANDER’ once. The complainant always signs as ‘Siba Prasad Thander’ and said signature has been kept as specimen signature.
Copy of the specimen signature and passbook show that name of the complainant has been shown as “Siba Prasad Thander”
We find from Xerox copy of the withdrawal slip dt. 16.12.2015 (disputed) and dt. 18.12.2015 that in slip dt. 18.12.2015 the complainant put his signature as “Siba Prasad Thander” once clearly. But slip dt. 16.12.2015 firstly submitted with signature “Shiba Prasad Thander” and first name of the complainant has been noted there as “Shiba” instead of “Siba”. Then other signatures were taken there. So, there was doubt. We find in pass book, other withdrawal form, complaint and evidence the complainant put his signature as “Siba Prasad Thander”.
Putting of own signature by inserting wrong spelling is also very much doubtful.
From enlarged signature of complainant in withdrawal slip dt. 16.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 we find that there are some anomaly regarding pattern of the letters put therein on the name of the complainant.
We find that it is the case of the O.P/Bank that SB A/c in question of the complainant is connected to his mobile No. and immediately message is forwarded to him regarding payment by the said system.
But it comes out from the cross-examination of the PW1, Complainant that he has not received any message from the Bank regarding withdrawal of the money.
It is the case of the O.P that the fact remains that the alleged amount to the tune of Rs. 40000/- was withdrawn on 16.12.15 and again an amount to the tune of Rs. 5000/- on 18.12.2015 from the said account but no complaint was lodged or brought to the notice of the O.P by complainant but it comes out from the cross-examination of PW1 that he has not filed any application between 16.12.15 to 21.12.2015 as he came to know about said missing on 21.12.15 at the time of uploading of passbook.
It is also the case of the O.P that the said amount of Rs. 40000/- was withdrawn on 16.12.2015 by depositing withdrawal slip but in case of withdraw of money by the withdrawal slip the customer is to deposit the passbook along with withdrawal slip which is mandatory and this bank employee cannot violate such provision and the claim of the complainant is not legal and genuine because of the fact passbook in question is / was in his custody.
But we have already stated that no such employee / officer of the Bank has come forward to say about process made by the staff in question in releasing the disputed money.
We find that it is the case of the complainant that the O.P Bank Manager also verified CCTV footage in presence of the complainant and the complainant was not found in the O.P’s Bank in withdrawal counter/bank premises on 16.12.2015.
Copy of the letter dated 11.03.2016 along with registration slip shows that the complainant prayed for supplying CC TV footage regarding the said bank for 16.12.2015 though PW2 Ayan Dey, Bank Manager in his evidence stated that there is CCTV footage facility in their Bank.
The complainant in his evidence claimed that during verification of CCTV footage by Manager of the Bank in his presence, he was not found in the withdrawal counter/Bank premises on 16.12.2015.
But none come to challenge said testimony of the complainant and CCTV footage is forthcomming.
We find that in the present case one Sourav Dey, Manager-in-Charge of the Bank has filed evidence on affidavit but thereafter he did not turn up and the complainant was unable to get opportunity to cross examine him. So no reliance can be placed on his evidence.
The O.P Bank has also not filed any document or written argument in this case rather by filing an application prayed for accepting their W.V as written argument.
We further find that in the present case the O.P Bank has not adduced any oral evidence but their Manager, Ayan Dey has come to the Forum as PW2 and produced some documents on behalf of the complainant.
So, it is clear that in the present case there is no evidence in favour of the O.P Bank and the O.P Bank is not at all sincere / diligent to contest the case.
We find that the PW1 / complainant Siba Prasad Thander was cross examined by the O.P side but no such material was forthcoming from his cross examination.
In view of the ruling reported in IV2006CPJ 2013(NC) wherein a complaint case the complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit case of the complainant stands prove.
Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we find that the complainant has been able to prove his case regarding deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank and they are liable to pay Rs. 40000/-, which has been wrongly withdrawn from the account of the complainant with 6% interest from 16.12.2015 till realization. The complainant is not entitled to get any other compensation.
Hence, both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Accordingly the case is allowed in part.
Proper fees have been paid.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that C.F case No. 42/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P Bank with cost of Rs. 2000/-.
The O.P UCO Bank, Nanoor Branch is directed to pay Rs. 40000/-, which has been wrongly withdrawn from the account of the complainant with 6% interest from 16.12.2015 till realization Complainant is not entitled to get any other compensation.
All such payments shall be made within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.
