Orissa

Cuttak

CC/84/2021

Satyajit Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,IDBI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

28 Jun 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.84/2021

          Satyajit Panda,

          S/O:Chitta Ranjan Panda,

          Plot No.3C/682, Sector-8,

           Markat Nagar,Dist:Cuttack-753014.                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Branch Manager,IDBI Bank Ltd.,

CDA Branch,Cuttack,Plot No.B/41,

Bank Colony, Sector-9,Markat Nagar,

                     Dist-Cuttack.

 

2.      IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Regd. Office:IDBI Tower,WTCComplex,

Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005.                                         ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   23.04.2021

Date of Order:  28.06.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1    :                  Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

                 For the O.P no.2:                         Mr. D.N.Singh,Advocate              

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he is an account holder in the bank of O.P no.1 having A/c. No.1844102000001847 with effect from March,2017.  The brother of the complainant namely Debipriya Panda has a Savings Bank account in the said branch of O.P no.1 having account No.1844104000023843.  Due to ill health, the complainant had gone to Bangalore for about two years for treatment and had returned to Cuttack on 15.11.2020.  One month thereafter, when the complainant visited the O.P no.1 bank in order to verify the account details and up-date his passbook, he could know that a sum of Rs.1,00,786/-has been debited from his aforesaid current account on 31.3.2017 towards payment of premium for purchase of a policy in the name of Debipriya Panda.  When he contacted O.P no.1 in this regard and urged that neither he had consented nor had sent any advice for deduction of such amount from his current account towards the premium of the said Debipriya Panda, the O.P no.1 had shown him a debit voucher dated 31.3.2017 where authorisation with proposal request containing the signature of the complainant thereby authorising O.P no.1 to transfer the said amount of Rs.1,00,786/- in favour of the O.P no.2 was reflected.  The complainant further alleges that the said authorisation letter bearing signature of the complainant was a manufactured document, which according to him was intended to patch up the negligence of O.P no.1 for which he has alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.1 and that O.P no.1 has practised unfair trade since because, the said authorisation debit voucher reflects transfer of Rs.1/- only.  According to the complainant, in a fraudulent manner the said authorization has been manufactured which was without his consent which was used for transferring the aforesaid amount from his current account towards the purchase of the policy in favour of his brother Debipriya Panda.  He had thereby requested O.P no.1 to revert back the said amount to his said current account but when there was no such initiative taken by O.P no.1, the complainant has filed this case before this Commission intending to get refund of the said amount of Rs.Rs.1,00,786/- which was debited from his account unilaterally, arbitrarily without his consent and further to get interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 31.3.2017 till the total amount is quantified.  He has further claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment and also for a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the O.Ps towards his litigation expenses.

          In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their separate written versions.  According to the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party.  He admits about the complainant having a current account in his bank with A/c. No.1844102000001847.  He has also submitted that the complainant had approached the Dealing Officer of his bank for availing an insurance policy in the name of his brother Debipriya Panda.  Due to the authorisation and request of the complainant containing his seal and signature, the amount of annual premium towards the policy of the brother of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,786/- was debited from the current account of the complainant and was transferred to O.P no.2 who is the insurer of the said policy of the brother of the complainant.  Four years thereafter in the month of February,2021, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2,97,987/- from the joint account bearing A/c. No.1844104000022640 of the complainant and his mother towards renewal of the policy bearing No.4001053709, but when the money was credited to O.P no.2, it was returned back since because that policy had lapsed.  Thus, according to O.P no.1 as and when instructions were being given by the complainant, those were duly carried out by his bank.  Accordingly, when the disputed amount was deducted, it was done as per the authorisation of the complainant only and SMS alert on each transaction were being sent to the complainant from time to time from O.P no.1 bank.  Accordingly, O.P no.1 through his written version has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost as filed.

          The O.P no.1 together with his written version has filed several copies of documents also in order to prove his stand.

          O.P no.2 through his written version admits about the policy in question and that the said Debipriya Panda is the brother of the complainant of this case who should have been added as a party in this case being a necessary party.  According to O.P no.2, there was no deficiency in service from his side. 

He also has annexed copies of several documents pin order to prove his case.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and if they have practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The O.P no,.1 has also filed evidence affidavit of one Devi Prasad Das working as Branch Head of IDBI Bank.  After going through the evidence affidavit of the said Devi prasad Das, it is noticed that the same is only the reiteration of the averments as made in the written version.

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the averments of the complaint petition and both the written versions and scanning the copies of documents as filed here in this case, it is noticed that the current account of the complainant in the bank of O.P no.1 is not disputed.  Debipriya Panda who has a S.B.Account in the O.P no.1 bank is the insurance policy holder of the insurer no.2 which is also not disputed.  It is also not in dispute that the said Debipriya Panda happens to be the brother of the complainant Satyajit Panda in this case.  Now question is, whether the O.Ps were found to be deficient in their service and if they had practised unfair trade.  As it appears, there is no allegation against O.P no.2 in this regard and O.P no.2 is thus not a proper party to this case.  The whole allegation of the complainant is that the money that was debited from his current account by O.P no.1 bank on 31.3.17 to the tune of Rs.1,00,786/- was not done as per his advice or consent.  According to the complainant, the authorization as shown by O.P no.1 is a manufactured document to which the complainant disputes, per contra, it is the urge of  O.P no.1 that by virtue of the said Debit Authorisation dated 31.3.2017, O.P no.1 bank had debited an amount of Rs.1,00,786/- from the current account of the complainant bearing no.1844102000001847  and had transferred the said amount to O.P no.2 towards the annual premium of the policy-holder Debipriya Panda.  As it appears, there is dispute regarding the Debit Voucher authorisation.  As per O.P no.1, the same was given by the complainant to the Dealing Officer of O.P no.1 bank and by virtue of the said advice/authorisation, the money was transferred from the current account of the complainant towards payment of the annual insurance premium of Debipriya Panda.  It is the complainant who disputes the same by alleging that the said document is a manufactured one.  Be that as it may, this dispute clearly envisages a criminal dispute and this Commission is not the appropriate forum where such dispute can be resolved properly.  This Commission is only to find out that if there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.1 here in this case but as per the availability of documents, which when probed, this Commission finds no deficiency in service as alleged on the part of the O.Ps nor can this Commission locate any practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issue no.i &iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

 

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                        

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                     President

 

                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                        Member