Complaint filed on: 27-10-2016 Disposed on: 26-10-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.140/2016
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Siddalingaiah,
S/o. Late Nanjappa,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at Doddamarappanahalli,
Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur taluk
(By Advocate Sri.N.Basavaraj)
V/s
Opposite party:-
Manager,
Canara Bank,
BH Road, Tiptur,
Tumakuru district
(By Advocate Sri.Jagadeeshappa)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.30,000=00 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 25-7-2016 ti till the date of payment with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant is holding SB account bearing No.0699101036427 and customer ID No.104724545 in the OP Bank. The complainant is an agriculturist and had grown ragi in his land and had sold the same to the KFCSC, Tumakuru on 20-7-2016 and Rs.31,500=00 was transferred to the complainant’s account in the OP’s bank. On 20-7-2016 the outstanding balance was Rs.32,500=00 in SB account of the complainant in the OP bank.
The complainant further submitted that, the complainant was need of money to purchase the manure and also for his domestic purpose. Hence, on 25-7-2016, the complainant went to the OP bank and requested the concerned clerk that he wants to draw Rs.30,000=00 from his account. The concerned clerk issued a withdrawal slip and the same was filled by the concerned clerk. The complainant affixed his signature on withdrawal slip and the concerned clerk issued a token to complainant bearing no.106. The complainant was waiting to draw the amount till his token was called and there was a display of token number which was issued to complainant. The complainant went to the case counter and handed over the token to cashier and the cashier informed him that the cheque has not yet come to him and insisted the complainant to approach the concerned clerk. The complainant again enquired the concerned clerk and came to know that, there are some confusion and asked the complainant to sign on another withdrawal slip and directed the complainant to take assistance of some person to fill the withdrawal slip. The complainant has taken assistance from one Basavaraju S/o. Chennappa of Kote, Tiptur and got filled the withdrawal slip and presented the same for encashment. The concerned clerk informed the complainant to come at 3.00 p.m.
The complainant further submitted that, at 3.00 p.m. the complainant approached the concerned clerk and he received shocking information that the amount of Rs.30,000=00 was drawn by some other person bearing token no.111. The complainant immediately informed the OP and there was no proper response from the OP. Immediately, the complainant lodged a complaint to the Town Police and the said police came to the OP bank and orally enquired. After enquiry, the Police have directed the bank manager to pay Rs.30,000=00 to the complainant and the OP agreed to pay the same. On the next day, the complainant approached the OP, but the OP in one or the other pretext by giving false assurance to the complainant that the amount will be paid in a day or two, but the OP evaded to paying the amount. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the OP on 17-8-20016 and the OP gave false and evasive reply to the said notice. The entire transaction on 17-8-2016 has been recorded in the CCTV footage installed in the OP bank. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection, contending interalia as under:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant has filed a false complaint against the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and there is no cause of action to file the complaint. The allegations made in the para 2 of the complaint are true. Further the OP admitted that, outstanding balance in the SB account no.0699101036427 is of Rs.32,500=00 as on 20-7-2016. The other allegations made in the complaint are hereby denied as false.
The OP further submitted that the procedure for withdrawal or payment in the bank is as follows; when the customer enters into bank to withdraw the amount, there is a token machine with red and blue button. That on the token machine it has been written as “Withdrawal and Deposit, in Kannada language. The customer after obtaining the token, he must collect the withdrawal slip/loose leaf/self cheque from counter concerned. After obtaining the same, the account holder has to fill it up, sign and then he has to wait for his token number to be displayed or announced. When number is displayed or announced, the account holder shall go to the cash counter and collect the cash or deposit the cash. Before the payment is made, the casher will verify the signature found on the withdrawal slip/loose leaf/self cheque with that of the signature and photo of the account holder found on system/computer of the account holder. After verification and scrutiny, if the casher satisfies himself both the signature are tally along with the account holder photo, with each other, he enter the token number on the withdrawal and then he make payment to the account holder.
The OP further submitted that, accordingly, the complainant came with a person and the same person has filled the withdrawal form got the signature from the complainant and the complainant withdrawn the amount by showing the token no.111 and also he himself showing his pass book as identity to the casher. The bank casher after verifying his signature and photo found on the computer screen and also his pass book and after satisfying he made the payment to the complainant. The said all the entire transaction has been recorded in the CCTV footage installed in the OP bank. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy costs. But the complainant suppressing all the real facts and approached this forum with the false complaint.
The OP further submitted that, the OP is ready to exhibit the CCTV recordings recorded on the day of instance. After the said instance, the complainant lodged the complaint to the Tiptur police on 21-9-2016 and on the basis of the complaint, the said police have issued the notice to the OP on 23-9-2016 and the OP also replied to the said notice. The police have investigating the matter and the same is still pending and the OP is waiting for the result of the investigation. During the pendency of the police investigation, the present complaint is not maintainable, because there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
8. So as to prove the case, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Both parties have produced documents which were marked as Ex-C1 to C2 and Ex-R1 to R6. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the cases for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. As looking into the allegations made in the complaint and also version filed by the OPs, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is having an SB account bearing No.0699101036427 in the OP bank.
8. The main allegation of the complainant is that, the complainant had been to the OP bank to draw an amount of Rs.30,000=00 on 25-7-2016 and concerned clerk has issued a withdrawal slip and the same was filled by the concerned clerk and the complainant has signed the withdrawal slip. Thereafter, the concerned clerk has issued a token to the complainant bearing token No.106 and the complainant was waiting for withdraw the amount from his account by giving token, but the same was not called hence the complainant has enquired the same with the concerned cashier and the said cashier has informed that, the pay slip/withdrawal slip has not yet come, hence, there was some confusion. Again the OP bank concerned clerk has issued a one more token bearing No.111. The complainant further alleged that, the complainant was waited upto 3.00 p.m. and he approached the concerned clerk and he received shocking information that, the amount of Rs.30,000=00 was drawn by some other person by giving token No.111. To substantiate his contention, the complainant has not produced a piece of paper.
9. On the other hand, the OP has contended that, when the customer enters into bank to withdraw the amount, there is a token machine with red and blue button. On the token machine it has written as “Withdrawal and Deposit, in Kannada language. The customer after obtaining the token, he must collect the withdrawal slip/loose leaf/self cheque from counter concerned. After obtaining the same, the account holder has to fill it up, sign and then he has to wait for his token number to be displayed or announced. When is number is displayed or announced, the account holder shall go to the cash counter and collect the cash or deposit the cash. Before the payment, the cashier will verity the signature found on the withdrawal slip with that of the signature and photo of the account holder found on system of the account holder. After verification and scrutiny, if the cashier satisfies himself both the signature are tally along with the account holder photo and enter the token number on the withdrawal slip and then he made payment to the account holder. In this case, the complainant came with a person and the same person has filled up the withdrawal form got the signature of the complainant and the complainant withdrawn the amount by showing the token no.111 and also he himself showing his pass book as identity to the cashier. To substantiate the above said fact, the OP has produced CCTV footage recorded CD, pay slip/withdrawal slip of the complainant, statement of account and police notice are produced by the OP. This evidence of the OP is not challenged by the complainant; thereby the evidence of OP remains unchallenged. Further, the above said instance, the complainant has lodged the complaint before the Tiptur police station on 21-9-2016. The police have investigating the matter and the same is still pending.
10. Moreover, disputed facts involved in this case and police investigation is still pending. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable before this forum. Accordingly, the complaint is disposed off with a liberty to approach the appropriate court. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is disposed off. No costs.
The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this, the 26th day of October 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
