Orissa

Jajapur

CC/07/2013

Nityananda Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief General Manager SBI - Opp.Party(s)

D.P.Satpathy,Pitambar Mishra

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                      Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                                      2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                      3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                        

        Dated the 29th day of February,2016.

                                        C.C.Case No.07 of 2013

Nityananda Nayak,  S/O Late Hari Nayak

Vill . Mahipur,P.O. Kauduakul, P.S.Balichandrapur

Dist. Jajpur.                                                                                                   …… ……....Complainant .                                                        .                                                  (Versus)

1.Chief General  Manager, State Bank of India ,Local Head Office ,

    Near Rabindramandap ) Bhubaneswar, Dist.Khurda .

2.  A.G.M,State Bank of Inida,Jajpur Town Branch,At/P.O. Jajpur Town

     P.S/Dist. Jajpur .                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:             Sri D.P.Sathpathy, Sri P. Mishra, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.1:        Sri G.C.Panda, Mis B.R.Rout, Advocates.                                                                               

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY MEMBER..                         Date of order:   29. 02. 2016.

                                                                                                                                         

                        Deficiency in banking  service is the grievance of the complainant.

                        The brief facts of the complainant case are that the petitioner is a retired teacher. The petitioner in order to get his pension through bank has opened one account bearing No.11309213907 in the State Bank of India at Jajpur Town Branch . His pension money is deposited in the above said account and the petitioner was and is drawing his pension money through his A.T.M card . Besides his pension money of the petitioner has also deposited in the said account personally . State Bank of India, Jajpur Town Branch, has also issued a pass book and A.T.M Card to the petitioner . On dt. 29.09.08, the petitioner had a sum of Rs.81,141,97/- in the said account . On dt.1.10.08 , the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.60,000/- through A.T.M card and after the said withdrawal the balance amount of Rs.21,141/- and 97 paisa remained in the above said account of the petitioner. The petitioner  again on dt.02.10.08 had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- from the said account and balance amount of Rs.1141.97/- remained in the said account. Subsequently the pension amount of the petitioner was also deposited in the said account. Thereafter, the O.P. Bank took away Rs.33,565/- from the above said account of the petitioner with an endorsement that A.T.M         amount recovered. From the pass book entry it is found that Rs. 20,000/- was set hold on dt.21.10.2008 and Rs.13,000/- was set hold on dt.21.10.2008 . Further the pass book shows that, there is entry on dt.01.01.2009 regarding delete hold Rs.13,000.- and on 16.01.2009 delete for Rs.8,000/- and on 30.04.09 delete hold for Rs.12,565/- . It may be clarified here that, there was no OD and the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.50,000/- from his account  when he has deposited of Rs.81,141.97/- in his account. So, the money of Rs.33,565/- taken by the Bank from the above said account of the petitioner is the money of the petitioner and the same is not the money of the Bank. The O.P Bank has illegally taken, a sum of Rs.33,565/- from the petitioner’s account on the ground of A.T.M  OD.

                        When the petitioner found that from his account the O.P Bank has illegally taken away a sum of Rs.33,565/- which exclusively belongs to petitioner, requested the O.P to refund and transfer the said amount to his account on several occasion. The petitioner had also informed the above fact to the O.P bank in writing through registered post and also orally requested to look after the matter and to do the needful to transfer the said amount to the account of the petitioner. Inspite of several requests the O.P Bank did not listen to the grievance of the  petitioner and on each occasion took time on some ground or others. Finally, the petitioner on 18.12.2012 requested the O.P. Bank authority in the Bank to refund the above said Rs.33,565/-. But the Bank authority refused to refund the same.

                        Hence, the complainant filed this dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs.33,565/- with interest @18% from 1.1.2009 and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

                        Regd. Notice was issued to the O.Ps. Inspite of Regd. notice the O.P.no.1 did not choose to file written version. Hence, he is set-expartee .After notice the O.P.no.2 appeared through his advocates and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition . The O.P.no.2 in his written version has stated that the petitioner is one retired employee. He has one account bearing No.11309213907 in the S.B.I, Jajpur Town Branch. It is true to say that the pension amount of the petitioner is deposited in the said account usually and the petitioner was drawing his pension money through his ATM card . it is also true that S.B.I, Jajpur Town Branch has issued pass book and ATM card to the petitioner. It is true to say that the balance amount in the account of the petitioner was Rs.81,141.97 dt.29.09.2008 . it is also true to say that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.60,000/- through his ATM Card and after withdrawal the balance was Rs.21,141.97 paise. The petitioner has not disputed any transaction through ATM on 01.10.08 . Actual balance in his account was Rs.8141.97 paise at the end of dt.1.10.08. Petitioner has admittedly withdrawn Rs.7,000/- on 02.10.08 after withdrawal of Rs.7,000/- there was balance of Rs.1141.97 paise in petitioner’s account. The petitioner has admitted in his petition that he had withdrawn Rs.20,000/- on 02.10.08 in SL No.1953 petitioner has also withdrawn Rs.13,000/- on 02.10.08 . By such withdrawal of Rs.33,000/- the petitioners account has no balance. But due to link failure the petitioner’s account could not show the detail particulars . Due to the said reason petitioner’s ATM draw of Rs.33,000/- was successful and the amount withdrawn by the petitioner was made from Bank  General Ledger A/C (BGL A/C) . In the month of August-08 the max limit of ATM withdrawal was Rs.40,000/- per day for domestic card. There can also be deviation in it as it is computer generation. Accordingly through ATM the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the amount although his balance was only Rs.1147.97 paise after transaction no.1 and 2 mentioned above. Since Rs.33,0000/- as stated above was over drawn by the petitioner on 02.10.2008, the petitioner is liable to repay it to the Bank with interest. Accordingly the bank has debited Rs.33,565/- from the account of petitioner’s towards repayment of such over drawn amount of the petitioner. There is no mistake from side of the Bank in debiting the over drawn amount and interest from the amount  of the petitioner. Since the SL no.3 and 4 transaction made with balance in sufficient , such transaction would not be recorded in the petitioner’s S.B Account . It is false to say that there was no OD and a and the amount taken by the branch is not the money of the Bank. It is false to say that the bank has taken Rs.33,565/- illegally towards ATM OD. It is false to say that inspite of separate request the bank is not listening the grievance of the petitioner. There is no question of refund of Rs.33,565/- to the petitioner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed.

                         The complainant in support of his case has filed the photo copies of the pass book and letters addressed to the O.Ps.

                        The O.P.no.1 in support of his case filed the photo copy of the ATM Card terms and condition . The O.P.no.1 also filed the photo copy of the statement of BGL A/C No.9858100094 of S.B.I dt.02.10.08 and statement copy of over draft amount.

                        On the date of hearing we have heard arguments from both sides. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

                        It is argued on behalf of the complainant that he had not withdrawn Rs.33,000/- through ATM. But the O.p.no.1 deducted the same from his account which is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.

                        On the other hand the advocate for O.P.no.1 argued that the BGL A/C statement shows that on 02.10.08 the complainant had drawn Rs.33,000/- from the ATM counter and the ATM card no, transaction number and account number  has been reflected in the BGL A/C of the Bank. Without ATM card and pin number   no amount can be withdrawn through ATM card. If the ATM card, pass ward, are   to the access lodge of the ATM machine then the A/C no, ATM no and TXN no of the person withdrawing the money is reflected in the bank ledger. As in this case excess amount is withdrawn by the complainant it is shown in  the BGL A/C of the Bank. It is not reflected in the bank pass book as there is  minus balance.  It can give money even if there is insufficient balance when there is failure of link . The BGL A/C statement shows that in TXN No.1953  and 1950 Rs.33,000/- are withdrawn and the complainant is liable to pay the same with interest.  We have verified the BGL A/C statement of O.P. no.1 SBI and we accept the contention of the advocate of the O.P no.1 and hold that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.33,000/- vide TXN No.1950 and 1953. Hence, the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.

                                                                        O R D E R

                        In the result the C.C.Case is dismissed  on contest against O.P.no.2 and expartee against O.P.no.1 without any cost. If  the complainant is aggrieved then he may file Civil Case against the O.Ps. for his grievances.

This  order is  pronounced in the open Forum on this the  29th  day of  February, 2016. under my hand and seal of the Forum.