Haryana

StateCommission

A/621/2014

Sukhjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Maninder Singh

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.621 of 2014

Date of the Institution:21.07.2014

Date of Decision: 25.11.2016

 

Sukhwinder Singh son of Shri Sohan Singh, resident of House No.58, Police Colony, Sector-5, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

State Bank of Patiala, SCO No.414, Sector-8, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             …..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    None for the appellant.

Mr. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Sukhwinder Singh, Appellant is in appeal against the Order dated 21.05.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby his complaint against State Bank of Patiala has been dismissed, as he failed to prove any deficiency in service.

2.      In brief, the complainant had a S.B. Account No.55116604233 along with ATM facility with the OP bank. On 04.09.2011, the complainant had Rs.2153/- in his account and he deposited Rs.3000/-. In September, 2012, when the complainant got his pass book completed he found that on 15.09.2011, Rs.24,000/- were withdrawn from his account by making two entries of Rs.12,000/- each through ATM transaction. The complainant asked the bank official that he did not withdraw any amount on 15.09.2011 then as to why these entries were shown in his pass book. But the bank official did not respond to his request. The complainant told the bank official that on 15.09.2011, there was no sufficient amount of Rs.24000/- so it could not be withdrawn from his account but the OP did not give any reply nor show any video footage recorded in the ATMs room. The OPs threatened the complainant that if he did not deposit the balance amount, the same would be recovered from his wife’s account, who was also maintaining her account with the branch of the OP. The OP later freezed the Saving Bank account of his wife and got deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- from the complainant under pressure. This act of the OP amounted to deficiency in service.

3.      Contesting the complaint the OP pleaded that the complainant was well aware of the fact that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.24,000/- and also gave  the undertaking on 08.08.2012 that he would deposit back the sum of Rs.24,000/- with the bank. OP requested the SBI bank for the video footage but the SBI could not supply the same as they did not keep the footage for more than three months. Further, the letter dated 08.08.2012 shows that the complainant admitted his liability and deposited the sum of Rs.5,000/- with his free will and agreed to deposit the remaining amount. The learned District Forum agreeing with the stand taken by the OP dismissed the complaint vide order dated 21.05.2014.

4.      Against the impugned order dated 21.05.2014, the complainant has filed appeal before us reiterating the same factual submissions and the grievances as raised by him before the District Forum.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that apart from the initial amount deposited by the complainant, no further amount was ever deposited by the complainant and the disputed amount was wrongly credited to his account by the bank. It was an inadvertent clerical error which was immediately rectified by the bank the moment came to their notice. The complainant was duly apprised of the same when he visited the bank he undertook in writing to deposit the balance amount which he never owned and deposited. However, he did not abide by is undertaking and instead approached the District Forum in order to retain the amount which was never deposited by him. The learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the bank as the amount wrongly credited by it to the amount of the complainant was withdrawn by the bank in order to rectify the mistake. Therefore, as the complainant did not have any right to retain the amount which was never own by him has rightly been taken back by the Bank and is complaint is therefore, is totally without any merit. Consequently, the Appeal is wholly without any merit with no order as to costs. 

 

November 25th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench