Orissa

Baudh

CC/25/2017

Sri Sarojkanta Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Union Bank of india,Boudh - Opp.Party(s)

29 Dec 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/25/2017
 
1. Sri Sarojkanta Das
Telephone Exchange ,Boudh At/Po/Dist:Boudh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager,Union Bank of india,Boudh
At/Po/Dist:Boudh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Padmanava Mahakul PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Mamatarani Mahapatra MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Suvendu Kumar Paikaray MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 29 Dec 2017
Final Order / Judgement

1.Alleging deficiency of service the complainant filed this case against the Opposite party for  a direction to credit the debited amount of Rs.14,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation cost.

2.The brief fact of the case is that the complainant an PSU employee of Telephone exchange, Boudh and is an Account holder of the O.P. vide account No.645702010000320.On 8.2.2017, the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.14,000/- ( in 2 occasion one Rs.10,000/- and second  Rs.4,000/-) by his ATM through ATM process of  O.P. bank card to meet his domestic need. An amount of Rs.14,000/- was erroneously debited from the account of  the complainant.But the ATM process was failed to deliver the withdrawn amount. On several approaches made by the complainant to the O.P. he did not take any step for credit of Rs.14,000/- in the complainant account which forced him to file this case before this forum for  proper redressal of his grievance.

3.Being noticed, the O.P. appeared in this case and filed his counter.In his counter the O.P. stated that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. The consumer case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has no cause of action to bring this case against the O.P.The O.P. admitted that the complainant is an account holder of his Bank. The complainant has withdrawn RS.14,000/-  at Bhubaneswar by using his ATM card and the transaction were successful vide claim settlement inquiry report dtd.18.7.2017.

4.During the course of hearing, the O.P. stated that  the complainant did not implead SBI  Bhubaneswar as necessary party in which ATM, the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.14,000/- through his ATM card.In his pleading,the complainant did not mention that  he had withdrawnRs.14,000/- from ATM, SBI Govt.Trasury Bhubaneswar.

Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and O.Pand documents filed by them, we dismiss the case of  the complainant against the O.P. without cost.

   Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 29th day of December, 2017.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Padmanava Mahakul]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. Mamatarani Mahapatra]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Suvendu Kumar Paikaray]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.