Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant is the Savings Bank Account holder under the OP-Bank. It is alleged inter-alia that the complainant has withdrawn of Rs.4,00,000/- only on 29.12.2006 from her account leaving a balance of Rs.1,35,727/-. But the OP No.3 has posted Rs.86,727/- in her pass book. The complainant made oral objection to Op No.3 on the same day and also OP No.1 & 2. The complainant alleged that they did not take her objection into consideration and thereafter complainant wanted to surrender the entire amount Rs.1,35,727/- or to refund the amount after closing the account. The OP did not listen to the request of the complainant. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP No.1 & 2 only submitted that the complainant has never requested or made any grievance for that they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The OP No.3 is directed to close the account of the complainant and to make payment of balance amount of Rs.17,065/- only to her alongwith interest till date within 30 days of receipt of this order. The OP No.3 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards deficiency of service and cost of the case.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has not produced any material to substantiate the allegation but the complainant has its account under the OP-Bank. Since, there is no any complaint to the OP, the deficiency in service is hardly found out. As learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the above fact and circumstances, the impugned order should be set-aside and the appeal stands allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum has passed the appropriate order and he supports the impugned order.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a S/B account holder under the OP and the documents are filed by the complainant to prove its allegation. Without prejudice to the case, we want to refer to the para-6 of the impugned order which is as follows:-
“The pass book of the complainant clearly shows that on 31.07.2006 the balance amount after withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 31.07.2006 was Rs.5,35,727/- only but not Rs.4,86,727/- only and hence after withdrawal of Rs.4,00,000/- on 29.12.2006, the balance amount should be Rs.1,35,727/- only. Thereafter the complainant withdrawn Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.60,000/- on 10.12.2007 + Rs.10,000/- on 19.12.2007 + Rs.30,000/- on 21.12.2007 + Rs.20,000/- on 21.05.2008 = Rs.1,20,000/- and deposited an amount of Rs.1,338/- on 31.03.2008. So, the complainant is liable to get Rs.15,727/- + Rs.1,338/- = Rs.17,065/- only (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Sixty five only) alongwith interest till date.”
10. In view of the aforesaid clear analysis of the pass book and the statement of the complainant there is nothing found to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, when the complainant has filed the affidavit stating that he has already made objection but the OP turned a deaf ear to the word of the complainant which is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
11. In view of aforesaid analysis we hereby confirmed the impugned order and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
