IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 08thday of July, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 207/2020 (filed on 22-12-2020)
Petitioner : Anthrayos N.A.
Nazhoorimattathil,
Pambady South P.O,
Kottayam.
(Adv. V.R. Balakrishnan Nair)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Indian Overseas Bank,
Nagampadom Branch,
Kottayam, Rep. by its Manger, IOC,
Nagampadom Branch,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Agi Joseph)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant is maintaining an account with the opposite party vide account number 196201000001968. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant has withdrawn 8 lakhs from the account. It is submitted in the complaint that the opposite party has withdrawn some amounts from the account of the complainant without his consent and knowledge. Though the complainant applied for accounts details such as statement of account and copy of ledge etc., the opposite party did not provide them to the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that in order to suppress the non-credit of Cheque deposits on 26-5-2006 and 22-8-2012 the opposite party did not give statement of the account and ledger copy to the complainant. The complainant had paid the fee for the copy of the documents as directed by the opposite party. But in spite of giving the copy of documents which are applied by the complainant, opposite party gave some documents which includes name of some other persons claiming as the statement of account of the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the commission and filed version contending as follows:
The opposite party has not withdrawn any amount from the account of the complainant. There is no cheque deposited in the account of the complainant as alleged on 26-05-2006 and 22-8-2012. The opposite party has given account details as per rules and regulations of the opposite party bank. Due to the continuous nuisance of the petitioner, bank filed a complaint before the police on 21-11-2016. The bank has given the details of the documents requested by the complainant. The opposite party has given proper and legal reply to the petitioner.
All the allegations contrary to this are absolutely false and denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits A1 to A7.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits A1 to A7. Srejith who is the Manager and Principal Officer of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit and exhibits B1 to B4(a) were marked from the side of the opposite party. On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points?
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1 and 2 together.
Opposite party admits the fact that the complainant had an account with opposite party vide account number 196201000001968. Exhibit A1 is the photocopy of the passbook issued to complainant from the opposite party bank.
Specific case of the complainant is that in order to suppress the illegal withdrawal of money from his account the opposite party was reluctant to provide statement of account and copy of ledger of his account. It is further averred in the complaint that the Cheque deposited in the account of the complainant on 26-5-2006 and 22-8-2012 was not credited to his account. It is proved by exhibit A4 that the complainant had remitted Rs.440 towards the postal charges to obtain the account statement of his account as directed by the central Assistant public information office of the Indian Overseas Bank vide exhibit A2 and A3. On receipt of the required fee from the complainant the opposite party issued Exhibit A5 the statement of account to the complainant on 3-3-20. On perusal of exhibit A5 and B2 which in non-other than the copy of exhibit A5, we can see that it contains the copy of ledger from April 2006 to 30-9-2008 along with the account statement from August 2008 to February 2020.On a close scrutiny of Exhibit A5 and B2 we can see there was no credit of any amount either on 26-5-2006 or 22-8-2012. Though the complainant specifically pleaded that there was some deposits through cheque on 26-5-2006 and 22-8-2012 neither in the complaint nor in the version he has sated how much amount was deposited through the cheque on those days and the did not disclose the details of the cheque and who made such deposits.
On perusal of Exhibit B3 and B4 we can see that the opposite party directed the complainant to provide the details of the Cheque which was allegedly send by the “LIS Deepasthambham Project “ into the account of the complainant. However the complainant did not produce any evidence before us to prove that the quantum of the cheque amount, from which bank it was transferred etc.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment dtd.06th October 2021 i.e. in “SGS India Limited v/s Dolphin International Limited”, categorically held that the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant.
Here in this case as discussed above we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 08th day of July, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of savings bank pass book in the name of complainant issued by opposite party
A2 – Copy of letter dtd.08-01-2020 issued by Central Asst. Public Information Officer
A3 - Copy of letter dtd.08-01-2020 issued by Central Asst. Public Information Officer
A4 – Copy of DD for Rs.440/-
A5 – Copy bank account statement for the period of 01-01-2005 to 29-02-20
A6 – Copy of receipt dtd.15-06-2020 issued by Dist. Police Office, Kottayam
A7 – Copy of letter dtd.25-06-19 from banking Ombudsman to petitioner.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Letter dtd.21-11-2016 from opposite party to The Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam
B2 – Copy of statement of account
B3 – Copy of letter dtd.13-01-15 from opposite party to petitioner
B4- Copy of letter dtd.02-03-2017 from opposite party to petitioner
B4(a) – Postal receipt
By Order
Assistant Registrar
