DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR
Presents:-
1 Sri A.K.Purohit, President
2 Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 03th day of October’ 2018
C.C. No. 22 of 2018
1 Sri Jayakrishna Singh Rai, aged about 82 years
S/o- Late Chitrabhanu Singh Rai
2 Sri Balaram singh Rai aged about 54 years
3 Sri Trayambakeswar Singh Rai, aged about 60 years
4 Mrunalini Devi, aged about 57 years
5 Lokapriya Debi, aged about 55 years
All are Son and daughter of Jayakrishna Singh Rai
R/o- Village- Loisingha, Po- loisingha, District- Bolangir
-Versue-
Branch manager, District Central Co- Operative bank Ltd,
Loisingha Branch, At/po- Loisingha,Ps- Loisingha, District- Bolangir
Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri A.K Sahu
Adv. For O.P :- Sri D.K. Bisi
Date of filing of the Case :- 02.05.2018
Date of Order :- 03.10.2018
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. All the five complainants have preferred this case jointly having the same cause of action and as the O.P.is the one and same. The O.P. is dealing with the banking business and all the complainants having their deposit accounts in the O.P.’s bank. The complainants are supplied with pass-book to their account where in their deposit statements are printed to show their updated deposit. The complainants have alleged that, their deposit statement are over written in the pass book for which they have doubted the correctness of the account statement and have reported the same before the O.P. but no step has been taken by the O.P. to supply a clean and clear statement. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainants have preferred this consumer complaint.
2. The O.P. has contested the case by filing his written version. According to the O.P. the overwriting in the pass book is a electronic mechanical error and the statement of account is correct according to the deposits of the complainants and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The O.P. denied all the allegations of the complainant and claims dismissal of the case.
3. Heard the learned advocate for the complainant. Perused the written version and documentary evidence available on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainants are the account holder of O.P.’s bank. It is evident from the Xerox copy of pass book filed by the complainants that there is over writing and hand written in the statement printed in the pass book which is not clear. It is the saying of the O.P. that the said over writing is due to electronic mechanical error. Whatever may be the error the O.P. is duty bound to correct the same but there is no evidence available on record to show that the said error has been corrected by the O.P. The complainants have deposited their hard earned money in the bank with the hope that their money is in safe custody but they are denied with a corrected and updated pass book by the O.P. which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
4. With these evidence and material available on record the stand taken by the O.P. cannot be accepted and the O.P. is duty bound to supply corrected and updated pass book to the complainants as per their deposit. In his written version the O.P. has submitted that there is no accounts like account No. 67858 in the name of the complainant in his bank. The complainant has also not produce the pass book of the said account. However in the event the pass book bearing account No. 67858 is produce before the O.P. the same may be corrected as per the deposit of the complainant. Hence
ORDER
The O.P. is directed to correct the account statement of the complainants as per their deposit and to issue updated pass book on production of the overwriting pass book by the complainants and to pay Rs. 1000/- ( One thousand ) to each complainant towards litigation cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open Forum today the 3rd day of October 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
