By Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
-2-
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the treasurer of Gramadeepam Farmers club. The farmers club is having an SB account bearing No.67075582563 in SBT Koliyadi branch. On 22.02.2017, the Complainant approached the bank to deposit an amount of Rs. 16,500/- in this account. During that period, the process of amalgamation of SBT with SBI was going on. Therefore necessary forms were not available there and thus the Complainant deposited Rs.16,500/- by using a pay-in-slip without a counterfoil. The first opposite party accepted the amount and directed the Complainant to come again to enter the transaction in the passbook. Thereafter on 27.02.2017, the Complainant deposited Rs.9,500/- in this account and the first Opposite party has not entered the said transaction also in the passbook. Only on 02.06.2017, the first opposite party entered the transaction of Rs.9,500/- in the pass book. But he has not entered the transaction of Rs.16,500/- in this pass book. When enquired, the second opposite party told that there was no such deposit on that day. Since, there was no counterfoil, the Complainant was unable to convince the second opposite party about this transaction. But it can be seen from CCTV. Even then, the Opposite party was not ready to verify the CCTV footage. Therefore, the Complainant has given a complaint before the Ambalavayal police Station.
-3-
The police have not taken any proper action. They have also not verified the CCTV footage. So, the Complainant gave a complaint before banking ombudsman. Without any proper enquiry, the banking Ombudsman has given a false reply. The Complainant suffered mental agony due to the improper attitude of the Opposite parties. He had financial loss also. Hence this complaint to enter the deposit of Rs.16,500/- in the account of the club. He sought compensation also for his mental agony.
3. The Opposite parties filed version which in short is as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no authority to file this complaint. There is no deficiency in their service. The Complainant has not deposited Rs.16,500/- in the account maintained by the club on 22.02.2017 as alleged by him. The police as well as banking Ombudsman have enquired about
the complaint and found incorrect. They verified CCTV footage. The bank has verified the CCTV footage and it is revealed that the Complainant has not deposited Rs.16,500/- on 22.02.2017. A lady who came with the Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- on that day and got entry in her pass book. There was no complaint to the printer on that day and therefore the Complainant filed this
-4-
complaint falsely in order to get monetary benefit from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite
parties. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get anything
as claimed?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext. A1, A2 and Ext.C1. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- The complainant’s specific case is that he has deposited Rs.16,500/- in an account maintained by the Farmers Club in SBT Koliyadi branch
on 22.02.2017 and first Opposite party has not entered this transaction in the passbook on that day. According to him, on 27.02.2017, he has remitted Rs.9,500/- in the same account and though it has been entered in the pass book on 02.06.2017, the deposit of Rs.16,500/- dated 22.02.2017 has not been entered in the passbook. He contended that only on enquiry, the second Opposite party
-5-
revealed that there was no such deposit on that day. Thus, his grievance is that this amount is missing. The specific case of the Complainant is that due to amalgamation process, there was no pay-in-slip having counterfoil in the bank and so, he remitted the amount by using a pay-in-slip without a counterfoil. He alleged that even though he filed a complaint before the Ambalavayal police and banking Ombudsman, he has not obtained any remedy and therefore, he filed this complaint.
7. The Opposite parties specifically denied that the Complainant remitted such amount on that day. The Opposite parties contented that the Complainant has no authority to file this complaint. It is evident that the Complaint is the treasurer of Gramadeepam Farmers Club which is having the said S.B account. According to the Complainant, he has remitted that amount for and on behalf of
Gramadeepam Farmers Club. It is seen that the Complainant has not filed this complaint on his personal capacity. He filed this complaint on official capacity as Treasurer of Gramadeepam Farmers Club. So, there is no reason to reject this complaint by accepting the contention of the Opposite parties that the Complainant has no authority to file this complaint.
-6-
8. The Complainant has given evidence as PW1 who stick on his case during the examination also. OPW1, the first opposite party deposed in order to deny the allegation. During the pendency of the case, a Commission was appointed and he verified the CCTV footage. Ext.C1 is the commission report. He has verified 6 CCTV footage. Commissioner affirmed in Ext.C1 that the Complainant never deposited any amount on 22.02.2017 as alleged by him. According to the Commissioner, he has not seen even an attempt from the Complainant to deposit any amount on that day. He has also stated in Ext.C1 that there is no chance to lose any pictures. Even though, the Commissioner recommended for a verification of CCTV footage by a digital forensic Expert in order to find out whether there is any tampering or not in footage, the Complainant has not taken any steps to send the footage for verification by such Expert. Admittedly, there is
no counter foil with the Complainant to prove the deposit. So, except Ext.C1 and oral evidence of PW1, there are no other materials to prove that the Complainant has deposited the said amount as alleged. Without any supporting evidence, the oral evidence of PW1 cannot be accepted as such because he is an interested witness. As I already stated, Ext. C1, Commission report is against the Complainant. Therefore here absolutely, there are no materials to prove that the
-7-
Complainant deposited Rs.16,500/-on 22.02.2017 in SBT as alleged by him. Therefore it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties. Thus, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. So, the point is answered against the Complainant.
9. Point No.2:- Since, I found point No.1 against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any other relief.
In the result the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16th day of September 2020.
Date of Filing: 07.08.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
-8-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Raymon. M. D. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. T. S. Manoj Kumar. Cashier.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of complaint given to the Banking Ombudsman by the
complainant. Dt:14.06.2017.
A2. Copy of Reply Letter. Dt:21.07.2017.
C1. Commission Report. Dt:20.02.2018.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
