DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.11.2024.

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission. 

2.         The complainant is the senior citizen and having S.B. Account No. 10859236151 with O.P. Bank since long. For urgent personal expenses the complainant filed S.B. withdrawal form on 07.11.2019 for Rs.54,800/- which was accepted by the teller counter of the O.P. But it was informed that, the said amount cannot be withdrawal and further advised the complainant to submit a fresh withdrawal form for Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly the complainant complied the same immediately but later of the day the O.P. informed the complainant that the account has been hold for Rs.14,665/- and hence the amount cannot be withdrawn. Accordingly the complainant filed a written complaint immediately thereafter to the O.P which was duly acknowledged without date. But the O.P. Bank paid deaf ear to the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed this case and sought following reliefs:

(A) Allow to withdrawal of money from the S.B. Account.

(B) Payment of exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/-.

(C) Payment of Litigation cost Rs.5,000/-,

(D) And such other order/orders as deems fit of the   

       Circumstances of the case.

3.         The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Party. The O.P. appeared and filed written version through its advocate.

4.         The O.P. admitted in its written version that on 07.11.2019 there was some network problem hampering smooth banking operation. As per the information provided by the system there was a lean mark/hold against the account. Further the O.P. stated that, they are not liable for payment of exemplary compensation and litigation cost. The O.P. has acted upon the representation of the complainant and removed the hold on his account. Due to net problem and some technical banking problem there was delayed. But there is no deficiency in service. It is further stated that the complainant without verifying the status of the account and the action taken by the Bank filed this complaint. This case is not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

5.         On the date of hearing the advocates for both parties were present and submitted their arguments on the point of issues. The Commission heard at length from both the parties and gone through the case record.

6.         On analysis the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit and written arguments of both the parties minutely, it is manifests that, the complainant just filed an application for restore the service which does not disclose any urgency in it. The Complainant did not bring to the record how the complainant had suffered. The complainant failed to bring to the record, how many days the account of him was in lean mark/hold by the op and for which the complainant is not able to operating the accounts. The OP bank has drawn the attention of the Commission through written version, and evidence about the restoration of service as per application of the complainant immediately. The op further stated that the complainant without verifying the status of the account and the action taken by the Bank filed this complaint. Hence there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

In the above factual aspects of the case, the Commission is not inclined to allow the complaint.

            Resultantly the Commission dismissed the complaint against the Opposite Party for suppressing the material information. The parties are to bear their cost.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 18.11.2024