A. K. BHATTACHARYYA

Complainant’s case, in short, is that on 22-02-2011 when he went to the OP Samity Ltd. to withdraw Rs. 50,000/- from his savings account no. 473, despite having enough balance in his account, the concerned official did notallow him to withdraw the same from his account on the ground that there was insufficient balance in his account.  Following his severe perseverance of the matter, he was informed by the higher authority of OP Samity Ltd.that a sum of Rs. 27,000.00 was wrongly credited to his savings account on 07-04-2008 leading to the mismatch in his balance as shown in the passbook vis-à-vis actual balance, which the complainant vehemently denied.  As the OP Samity Ltd.did not take any positive step to redress his grievance, finding no other alternative, the complainant filed the instant case.

In support of his contention the complainant filed photocopies of his savings passbook, copies of some correspondences including one Inquiry Report of Inspector of Co-Op Societies, Nandigram Block-II dt. 09-11-2012 etc.

Upon getting notice, all the OPs turned up to contest the case, submitted W.V., WNA etc. and took a positive part in the entire proceeding.  By their individual written versionsthey denied all the material allegations of the complainant.  While OP no. 3 claimed herself as a bona fide depositor of the disputed sum of Rs. 27,000/-, OP nos. 1 & 2 supported the contention of OP no. 3 and stated that OP no. 3 deposited the said amount vide challansl no. 9 and in their Daily Cash Book they did not find any deposit in the name of the complainant on 07-04-2008.  It is stated by OP nos. 1 & 2 that by mistake the then Manager credited complainant’s account with a sum of Rs. 27,000/- on 07-04-2008 and the complainant, in order to take undue advantage of such erroneous entry, has illegally claimed the said amount and that while the complainant has not at all deposited the disputed amount, he is not entitled to get the same. 

The OP nos 1 & 2 submitted several original cash deposit slips including the disputed receipt, original handwritten Daily Cash Book as well as the pucca Cash Book, photocopies of Savings Deposit Ledger books of complainant and OP no, 3, letter of ARCS etc.

Point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

We have carefully gone through the materials on record viz written versions, WNAs, Pass Books, Cash Book, bundle of deposit slips, Savings Deposit edger books, Inquiry Report of Inspector of Co-operative Societies etc. and also heard the submission of ld. lawyers of parties.

On careful perusal of the materials on record we find that notwithstanding Complainant’s Passbook and Savings Deposit Ledger show a Cash deposit of Rs. 27,000/- on 07-04-2008, there is no mention of such entry in the hand written Daily Cash Book of OP Samity Ltd.  While the Challan copy no. 9 dt. 07-04-2008 corroborates the Daily Cash Book entry of OP Samity Ltd.; we do not find any such cogent document to substantiate the credit entry being made in the Pass Book and Savings Deposit Ledger of the complainant.  Besides, the Inquiry report of Inspector, Co-operative Societies too negates complainant’s claim in respect of the disputed amount. Above all, a glance through the deposit slips as well as entries in the Cash Book does not give it the look of any foul-play.  Although ld. lawyer for the complainant drew our attention to a minor correction being made by the depositor as regards date of deposit in one place of the deposit slip in question (Challan No. 9 dt. 07-04-2008), the date mentioned just below the signature of depositor and also the dated signature of the Samity official hardly leaves any ambiguity as regards actual date of deposit and thus, the objection of complainant in this regard is not tenable.

Although the complainant sought to stake his claim on the disputed amount, he has not brought on record any tangible proof like Deposit Challanto establish the bonafideness of his claim beyond all reasonable doubt.  It is claimed by the complainant that he has lost the deposit challan because of which he could not produce the same.  However, this cannot be a compelling ground to accord benefit of doubt to the complainant insofar as the documents on record clearly supports the claim of OP no. 3 vis-à-vis that of the complainant.  Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of OP nos. 1 & 2.

So, the instant case being bereft of any merit the complainant is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever as sought for.

Hence, it is

                                                             O R D E R E D

that the instant C. Case no. 03/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without cost.

                                                         S.S. Ali                                                A.K. Bhattacharyya

                                                         Member                                               President