IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                     CASE No.  CC/193/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     10.11.17                                     17.11.17                                                     29.05.19

                 Complainant: Md. Saidur Rahaman

   S/o Md. Enajuddin

   Vill. Gajinagar, P.O. Mahadebnagar,

   P.S. Samserganj,

   Dist- Berhampore, Pin- 742202

-Vs-

Opposite Parties:  1. The.Branch Manager, United Bank of India,

            Dakbunglow Branch, Dhuliyan

            P.S. Samserganj,

            Dist- Berhampore, Pin- 742202

  2.The Asstt. General manager

          RBO-1, State Bank of India,

PO & PS- Berhampore,

          Pin- 742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                             : Sri. Nilabja Datta

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1         : Sri. Subhash Saha

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2         : Sri. Satinath Chandra

Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                             

               Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

     This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

          One Saidur Rahaman, Prop. Achintya Basak (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, UBI, Dakbunglow Branch, Dhuliyan and the Asstt. Manager, SBI, RBO-1, SBI, Berhampore (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

      The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

          The Complainant has a S/B account with the O.P. No.1 being No. 1668010000718 and he withdrew Rs. 2,000/-on 23.11.16 and Rs. 2,000/- on 26.11.16 from the ATM counter of the O.P. No. 2.. As per Bank’s Notification a person was allowed to withdraw a maximum amount of Rs. 2000/- per day during the period of demonetization but the O.P. No.1 debited Rs. 8,000/- . The Complainant requested the O.P. No. 1 to credit the amount but in vain. The effort of the Complainant to settle the dispute through the Consumer Affairs and Fair business Practice, Regional Office,  Berhampore  but of no effect.  Hence, the Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OPs to credit Rs. 8,000/- in his account and to pay compensation of  Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.                       

          The OP Nos. 1&.2 contested the case by filing written version on 19.02.18 and 23.02.18.,

          The O.P. No 1 states that the case is not maintainable. Denying all allegations the O.P. No. 1 has asserted that the complainant withdrew the claimed amount from the ATM of O.P. No. 2 and the information received from the SBI revealed that the transactions were successful. The O.P. No. 1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          The OP No 2 has asserted  that the Complainant is not a consumer of the OP No 2. It is the specific case of the O.P. No.2 that the Complainant withdrew Rs.2,000/-everyday from 23.11.16 to 26.11.6 and it is evident from the electronic Journal and the Statement of accounts of  the ATM card. The complainant has suppressed the facts. There is no deficiency in service. The OP No. 2 prays for dismissal of the Complaint.

          On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper   adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Havethe OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP Nos.1 for consideration.  In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2 submits that the complainant is not a consumer under the OP No.2.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OP No.1  for consideration.

Point No.2

          The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This points is thus disposed of.

Point Nos. 3&4

          The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the complainant withdrew Rs. 2,000/ 0n 23.11.16 and Rs. 2,000/- on 26.11.16  but a sum  of Rs.6,000/- was debited from his account on 26.11.16. It is urged that the period from 23.11.16 to 26.11.16 was within the period of demonetization when ATM withdrawal was limited upto Rs. 2,000/- per day.   He submits that the OP Nos.1 & 2   have deficiency in service. He prays for compensation against the OPs.

           In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OP No.1 requested the OP No. 2  on receipt of Complaint from the Complainant to redress the grievance and the OP No. 1 informed that the transctions were successful. He submits that the OP No. 1 has no deficiency in service. He prays for dismissal of the Complaint.

          The ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that the Complainant withdrew Rs. 2,000/- everyday from 23.11.16 to 26.11.6 and it is evident from the system generated Electronic Journal and Statement of accounts of the ATM card. It is contended that the complainant has not denied the fact of withdrawal of Rs. 2,000/ every day from 23.11.16 to 26.11.16 in his evidence.  He submits that the OP No. 2 has no deficiency in service. He prays for dismissal of the Complaint.

          We have gone through the Complaint, W.V. , evidence, written argument  and documents filed by both parties.

          It is the case of the Complainant that he withdrew Rs. 2000/- on 23.11.16 and Rs.2,000/-on 26.11.16 through ATM from the O.P. No2 but Rs. 8,000/- was debited from his bank account. If the version of the complainant is accepted for argument’s sake, in that case also  the OP No. 1 was to debit Rs. 4,000/- from his account.  The OP No. 2 has asserted that the complainant withdrew Rs. 2,000/- everyday from 23.11.16 to 26.11.16 and it is also evident from the system generated statement of account and Electronic Journal dated 23.11.16,24.11.15,25.11.16 and 26.11.16 filed by the OP No.2 (Marked as A and B series). The Complainant has not denied the fact of withdrawal of  Rs. 2,000/- everyday from 23.11.16 to 26.11.16 in  his evidence.

          Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the complainant  has failed to establish any deficiency in service against the OPs and he is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 10.11..17 and admitted on 17.11.17. 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 Consumer case fails.

    Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint case No. CC/193/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs 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.

          President

  Member                                                                        President