Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he is holder of Saving Bank Account bearing No.3463000101755333 with Opposite Party. During the period of demonetization, the Opposite Party deposited old currency of Rs.5,96,000/- in the saving account of the complainant and this act of the Opposite Party came to the notice of the complainant when he received notice from Income Tax Department. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to rectify the said entry, but to no affect and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party as someone has deposited the said amount of old currency in the account of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Party may be directed to rectify the entry in the saving bank account of the complainant and also to make the payment of Rs.1 lakh as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment caused by the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses and also to pay any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has been maintaining his Saving Bank Account bearing No.3463000101755333 with the Opposite Party bank and the complainant has been operating the said account and availing the banking services by depositing and withdrawing money from his SMS Alert Enabled Account. It is denied that the Opposite Party bank ever deposited the alleged demonetized old currency notes of Rs.5,96,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the complainant. The Government of India on 08.11.2016 declared demonetization of the currency notes of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-, by permitting bank customers a time period from 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 to deposit such demonetized old currency notes in their accounts maintained with their banks. As per the record of the statement of account of the complainant, it reveals that a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- and Rs.55,000/- has been deposited in his account on 10.11.2016 and 12.11.2016 and the same has been correctly depicted in the record of the bank, maintained in the ordinary and usual course of banking business by the Opposite Party. As regard the entry of Rs.3,48,000/- the same does not appear in the record of the bank, pertaining to this account, duly maintained by the Opposite Party bank. The complainant had been operating his SMS Alert Enabled deposit account from 10.11.2016 to 14.07.2017 by depositing and withdrawing money from his Saving Bank Account and he had full knowledge of each transaction of credit and debt entry transacted in his saving bank account from time to time.. The complainant never pointed out about these two credit entries dated 10.11.2016 and 12.11.2016 of demonetized currency notes of worth Rs.2,48,000/-. The complainant was also informed that the Opposite Party bank is not aware of alleged credit entry of Rs.3,48,000/- as the same does not reflect in the relevant record books of the bank and on this, the complainant was fully satisfied and was also provided the statement of account of his Saving Bank Account and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party bank. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.H.K.Arora Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to OP1/8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. We have perused the rival contentions of both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he is holder of Saving Bank Account bearing No.3463000101755333 with Opposite Party. During the period of demonetization, the Opposite Party deposited old currency of Rs.5,96,000/- in the saving account of the complainant and this act of the Opposite Party came to the notice of the complainant when he received notice from Income Tax Department. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to rectify the said entry, but to no affect and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party as someone has deposited the said amount of old currency in the account of the complainant.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has been maintaining his Saving Bank Account bearing No.3463000101755333 with the Opposite Party bank and the complainant has been operating the said account and availing the banking services by depositing and withdrawing money from his SMS Alert Enabled Account. It is denied that the Opposite Party bank ever deposited the alleged demonetized old currency notes of Rs.5,96,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the complainant. The Government of India on 08.11.2016 declared demonetization of the currency notes of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-, by permitting bank customers a time period from 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 to deposit such demonetized old currency notes in their accounts maintained with their banks. As per the record of the statement of account of the complainant, it reveals that a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- and Rs.55,000/- has been deposited in his account on 10.11.2016 and 12.11.2016 and the same has been correctly depicted in the record of the bank, maintained in the ordinary and usual course of banking business by the Opposite Party. As regard the entry of Rs.3,48,000/- the same does not appear in the record of the bank, pertaining to this account, duly maintained by the Opposite Party bank. The complainant had been operating his SMS Alert Enabled deposit account from 10.11.2016 to 14.07.2017 by depositing and withdrawing money from his Saving Bank Account and he had full knowledge of each transaction of credit and debt entry transacted in his saving bank account from time to time.. The complainant never pointed out about these two credit entries dated 10.11.2016 and 12.11.2016 of demonetized currency notes of worth Rs.2,48,000/-. The complainant was also informed that the Opposite Party bank is not aware of alleged credit entry of Rs.3,48,000/- as the same does not reflect in the relevant record books of the bank. Perusal of the aforesaid contention and correspondence made by the Opposite Party bank a sum of Rs.2,48,000/- was deposited in the account of complainant (Ashish Aggarwal) in his Saving Bank Account during the period 09.11.2016 to 28.12.2016 (i.e. Rs.1,93,000/- and Rs.55000/- on 12.11.2016) and other than this, there is no cash deposit was ever made in his account and the aforesaid contention and correspondence has nowhere denied by the complainant by filing and cogent and convincing evidence. On the other hand, to prove such assertion, the Opposite Party has placed on record statement of account Ex.OP/1, copy of incidental summary detail Ex.OP/2, copy of letter Ex.OP3, copy of statement Ex.OP4, copy of correspondence Ex.OP5, copy of information sent to RTI Officer Ex.OP/6, copy of letter Ex.OP/7, copy of certificate Ex.OP8 and these documents have nowhere rebutted by the complainant and as such, in view of the unrebutted evidence placed by the Opposite Party on record to prove their bonafide, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated:29.04.2022.
