IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 12/2015.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
21.01.2015 02.02.2015 24.11.2017
Sanarul Haque,
S/o Late Samsul Haque,
Vill. & P.O. Rameswarpur,
P.S. Beldanga, Dist. Murshidabad. ……… Complainant.
-vs-
Manager,
Axis Bank,
Berhampore Branch,
P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. …..... Opposite Party.
Md. Saddam Hossain, Advocate for Complainant
Sri Rajdip Goswami & Sri Abul Kalam Azad, Advocate for Opposite Party
Present : Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
Sri Manas Kumar mukherjee .…. ….. Member.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the Complainant, contending gross negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service towards the Complainant by the Opposite Party.
In concise, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant is the regular customer of the Opposite Party Bank having the Savings Account No. 910010023576361. Usually the Complainant used to stay at Soudi Arabia for his livelihood.
In the month of Dec. 2013, after returning from the Soudi Arabia at the time of updating the Bank Pass Book, surprisingly the Complainant detected that a total sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- only had been withdrawing from his account on different dates without any knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant specifically stated that these huge amount had not been withdrawing by the Complainant or any of his family members but by someone else. Soon the Complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party further informed the Complainant that the said amount had been withdrawn through ATM Card and also mentioned that the Complainant had/has hold the ATM Card for the said account which is always remained in the custody of the Complainant. But the Complainant never used his ATM Card on such dates for withdrawing money on which such amounts had been withdrawn.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
Thereafter the Complainant requested the Opposite Party for refunding the said amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- only to his account but the Opposite Party never paid any heed to it what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party Bank towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Party Bank.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and the same is not maintainable.
The specific case of the Opposite Party in crisp, is that, the Complainant has a S.B. Account being A/C No. 910010023576361 with this Opposite Party Bank and possess a one Debit Card in connection with this account for his personal purpose. When the Complainant went to the Soudi Arabia he used the said Debit card and for the same as per the Bank norms regarding international transactions automatically a Chief Card was issued by the Opposite party Bank to the registered address of the Complainant which was duly used by the Complainant and his family members for withdrawing the cash. It is clear from the Bank Statement that either by the Complainant or by any of his family members had withdrawn the money from the ATM Counter on the said different dates with the knowledge of the Complainant as the details of the said Debit Card was laid only to the Complainant.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
The Opposite Party Bank stated by filing Additional Written Version that from the collected documents it was found that the ‘Chief Card’ which was sent to the registered address of the Complainant was used by one Sekh Chhanarul who had withdrawn the said alleged money through ATM and subsequently transferred a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only on two different dates @ Rs. 50,000/- only each in the said account of the Complainant. This Sekh Chhanarul has an another account with this Opposite Party Bank.
So the Complainant along with his family members and with connivance with this Sekh Chhanarul for grabbing the public money filed the instant case. Thus, this Opposite Party Bank strictly denied any negligence or/ and deficiency on their part in rendering service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case.
Point for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service
on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite party is that whether the Opposite Party Bank is liable to return back the said amount alleged by the Complainant to be withdrawn by some unknown person in the account of the Complainant or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party Bank and on critical appreciation of all the material evidenced on record it is evident that admittedly the Complainant had/has a Savings Account being A/C No. 910010023576361 with the Opposite Party Bank and possess a one Debit Card in connection with the said account for his personal purpose.
The record reveals that admittedly the Complainant went to the Soudi Arabia and used the said Debit card for the same as per the Bank norms regarding international transactions automatically a Chief Card was issued by the Opposite party Bank to the registered address of the Complainant which was duly used by the Complainant and his family members for withdrawing the money through ATM.
It is clearly evident from the photocopies of the documents (Bank Statement) filed by the Complainant that on different dates the different amounts of money had been withdrawn from his account through the ATM (i.e. on 09.12.2013 the sum of Rs. 10,000/- only for thrice means the total sum of Rs. 30,000/- only, on 02.01.2014 the sum of Rs. 20,000/- only, on 06.01.2014 the sum of Rs. 50,000/- only and further the sum of Rs . 20,000/- only) which means the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- only in total was withdrawn from his account.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
It is further revealed that by filing Additional Written Version this Opposite Party Bank specifically stated that from the collected documents it was manifestly found by the Bank Authority that the ‘Chief Card’ which was subsequently sent to the registered address of the Complainant was practically used by one Sekh Chhanarul who had withdrawn the said alleged money from the Complainant’s account through ATM.
Moreover, the Opposite Party Bank further stated that this Sekh Chhanarul has another account with this Opposite Party Bank and subsequently this Sekh Chhanarul had transferred a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only to the account of the Complainant on two different dates on 31.01.2014 and on 01.02.2014 @ Rs. 50,000/- only each which is manifestly divulged from the photocopies of the documents (Bank Statement) filed by the Complainant.
But it is palpably evident from the Complaint that the Complainant never disclosed the fact as to refund of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only( from an unknown account) in his own Bank account which is the suppression of the material fact on part of the Complainant. But at the time of hearing argument when the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party drew our attention towards the said transfer through ATM which is clearly evident from the said Bank Statement filed by the Complainant himself, then the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant admit the said fact that out of total withdrawing amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- only the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only was refund back to the Complainant’s account from an unknown account.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
But the fact remains that the Complainant never raised any dispute and/or objection regarding the said transfer of some money from any unknown account to his own account before the bank Authority either written or verbal and the Complainant never stated the same before the Forum at any time neither at the time of hearing argument which indicates that the Complainant has no objection in such transfer which palpably proves that this Sekh Chhanarul may be a known person either to the Complainant or to his family members.
Moreover, it is also clear that the details of the said Debit Card and the said Debit Card itself was laid only to the Complainant or to his family member and the secret PIN code number is also known only to the Complainant and without disclosing the said secret PIN number by the Complainant himself to anyone else none can get the same by any other means. So from this rule it is apparent that either by the Complainant or by any of his family members or any other person with knowledge of Complainant had withdrawn the money from the ATM Counter on the said different dates.
Furthermore in the instant case, there is suppression of the material fact on part of the Complainant which proves that the Complainant did not come before the Forum in clean hands for which the case is liable to be dismissed and moreover in fact the Complainant has also miserably failed to prove his alleged case that the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- only has withdrawn from his account without his knowledge through ATM by someone else in connivance with the Bank authority and in this situation the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
So, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that in this fact and circumstances it is manifestly clear that the Opposite Party has done no deficiency and negligence in rendering any kind of service towards the Complainant by any means and thus the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for form the Opposite Party Bank and for suppression of the material fact on part of the Complainant the instant case is liable to be dismissed in favour of the Opposite Party.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has failed to prove his case and is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In short, the Complainant deserves failure.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party but without any cost. Parties to bear their own cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
