IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /19/2014.

 Date of Filing: 05.02.2014.                                                                           Date of Final Order: 30.10.2015

Complainant: Md. Azizul Hossain, S/O Md. Khalil, BL-IX, QR No. SB-128, P.O. Farakka Barrage,

                        P.S. Farakka, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742212.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Branch Manager, State Bank of India, P.O. Farakka Barrage,

                          P. S. Farakka, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742212.

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

FINAL ORDER

Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya—Presiding Member.

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for refund of Rs. (29,556.00 – 4434.00) = Rs. 25,122/-.

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that on 26.11.2011 Rs. 29,556.00 was stolen from his Savings Bank Account from the OP Bank. The OP, in its turn,   refunded Rs.4434.00 but not the entire amount of Rs.29, 556.00 without any explanation how his money was stolen and also why the entire amount has not been refunded to him. When the complainant tried to enquire about the matter he was scolded by the employer of the OP Bank and the matter was under investigation but even after 2years 2 months no result. The complainant has filed this complaint praying for refund of money.  Hence, the instant complaint.

In brief, the OP Bank has categorically denied the allegation of the complainant as to theft of Rs.29, 556.00 on 26.11.11 and refund of Rs.4434.00. The OP Bank, as per request of the complainant, handed over the ATM card and the transactions made by the complainant with ATM card and to that effect all the transactions are correct. The OP Bank is in no way responsible for the alleged transactions as those entries in the record are being made through link or server system. ATM services are being made through link system operation by the Server and there is no laches on the part of this OP Bank and for that the complaint be liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.

Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.

Points for consideration.

1. Whether the case is maintainable in law and facts?
2. Whether the complainant has locus-standi to file the present case?
3. Whether the case is barred by law of Principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence.
4. Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
5. Whether the case is bad for defect of parties?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons.

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

            The instant complaint is for realization of the remaining amount of Rs.25,122/-.

            In this case the complainant has not filed any evidence-on-affidavit not turning up at the time of final hearing but at the time of filing the complainant the complainant filed all the Xerox copies of relevant documents in support of the case.

            As per provision of the Act, under Section 13(2)( c)     regarding  the dismissal of the case for non-appearance of the complainant , we find that in spite of provision of dismissal for default, there is provision providing disposal on merit.

            In this case, though the complainant has not filed evidence-on-affidavit but considering the provision of law of this Act, we are of view that the case be disposed of on merit as the complainant has filed all the relevant documents at the time of filing of his complaint.

            The complainant’s case is that on 26.11.2011 Rs. 29,556.00 was stolen from his Savings Bank Account. In this regard the complainant wrote a letter to the General Manager and Deputy General Manager of RBI  on 28.11.11 stating that at the last line of 3^rd Paragraph written by hand , the numerical value is Rs.29,526.00. But the same letter written on 28.11.11 to the Chief General Manager, SBI, Mumbai where the said amount was printed and written as Rs.2845.62.

            There is no explanation revealed from any documents filed by the complainant regarding this discrepancy. Further from the 2^nd Paragraph of this letter written to above it appears that the complainant had balance amount of Rs.1,36,710/- but the statement showing amount of Rs.1,09,154.38/- but from the documents the ATM Slip and Bank Statement , there is no reflection as to the balance of  Rs.1,36,710/- . In the 2^nd Paragraph there is specific case that on 25.11.11 at 12.00 Noon he received a message through his Mobile that money was being transacted and withdrawn  amount of Rs.1000/- and he went to the ATM Station and took statement at 12.07 P.M. and found his total balance at Rs.1, 36,710/- but the statement was showing the  balance amount of Rs.1, 09,154.38. Those balance tallies with the ATM slip but there is no reflection about the opening balance of the complainant as Rs.1, 36,710.00.

            The complainant has filed Bank Statement separately where the opening balance in other words closing balance on 24.11.11 there is a balance at Rs.1, 22,460.38.

            Admittedly, the complainant has got of Rs.4434/- as refund out of his allegation as to theft of Rs.29, 556.00.

            To justify the claim of the complainant there is hand –written remarks on the margin of the Bank Statement dt. 22.11.11 as to Rs.(1,36,710.00 – 1,07,154) = Rs. 29,556/- and further deduction of refund of Rs.4434 = Rs.25,122/-.

            There is no seal and signature and authentication about the remark. Further there is no such reflection in the statement as to that handwritten figure. As such we have no other scope to consider those statements for disposal of this case.

            Regarding delay it is clear that the complaint was filed on 05.02.14 regarding the theft of money as on 26.11.11. Further correspondences requesting refund of remaining balance admitting the refund of Rs.4434/- sent through e-mail on 4.01.12. So, there is delay for about 1 month without any explanation as to such delay

            Considering the period of delay being nominal and financial condition of the complainant being very poor at the relevant time, this period of delay is considered and condoned.

            Considering the materials on record and the discussions as made above, we find that the complainant has failed to prove his claim and as such he is not entitled to get any further relief as to refund of Rs.25, 122.00. As such the case is liable to be dismissed on merit.

            Hence,

                                                                     Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 19/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on merit.

            There will be no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.