Haryana

Rohtak

CC/19/250

Lakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manish Verma

22 Oct 2019

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak.
Rohtak, Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/19/250
( Date of Filing : 22 May 2019 )
 
1. Lakshmi
W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, age 43 years R/o VPO Sisar Khas, Meham, District Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. State Bank of India
(Branch Code-51095), through its manager, Sisar Khas, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Dr. Renu Chaudhary PRESIDING MEMBER
  Mrs. Tripti Pannu MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sh. Manish Verma, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 22 Oct 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 250.

                                                          Instituted on     : 22.05.2019.

                                                          Decided on       : 22.10.2019.

 

Lakshmi w/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, age 43 years R/o VPO Sisar Khas, Meham, Distt. Rohtak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

 

State Bank of India(Branch Code-51095), through its Manager, Sisar Khas, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak.

 

……….Opposite party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

 

BEFORE:  DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Sh.Manish Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party  exparte.

                    

                                      ORDER

 

RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:

 

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has a saving bank account with respondent‘s bank vide A/c no.65099677291. That complainant was also issued an ATM card no.5175740017003764 of the alleged account by the opposite party. That on 05.03.2019 the complainant received a SMS on his mobile that Rs.20000/- withdrawal at SBI ATM, Jamtara, Bihar. It was further text in the SMS that if not done by you forward this email from email ID registered with SBI to unauthorized

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice sent to opposite party through registered post not received back either served or unserved and as such opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.07.2019 of this Forum.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 03.09.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy of email an amount of Rs.20000/- was deducted from his account on dated 05.03.2019 and on the same day, complaint was made by the complainant, which was registered by the opposite party vide ticket no.5317309666. A written complaint Ex.C1 was also moved by the complainant, as per which, he has not deducted the alleged amount and requested for refund of same. Complainant also moved an FIR Ex.C3. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, the amount has not been refunded by the opposite party.  Ld. counsel for the complainant also placed reliance upon the circular if RBI no.RBI/2017-18/15 dated 06.07.2017 as well as law 2017(2)CLT 603 titled as State Bank of India Vs. JCS Kataky(Dr.).

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that on the complaint of complainant, no action was taken by the opposite party. It is also on record that opposite party did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party stands proved and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The law cited above by ld. counsel for the complainant is also fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of debit of alleged amount from the account of complainant till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards  deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

 7.                        Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

22.10.2019.

                                               

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Renu Chaudhary, Member.                              

 

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

 

 
 
[ Dr. Renu Chaudhary]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[ Mrs. Tripti Pannu]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.