Orissa

Cuttak

CC/62/2022

Sanjib Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.no.62/2022

 

Sanjib Rath,

S/O:Jadunath Rath,

At:Plot No.F-66,Sector-7,CDA,

P.O/P.S:Markat Nagar,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753014.                                                           ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.                     Chairman,

State Bank of India,

                               5^th floor,State Bank Bhawan,

Madame Cama Road,Mumbai,

                               Maharastra-200021

 

 

2.                      Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,Tulasipur Branch,

                               Cuttack-753008.                                                               ...Opp. Parties

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     12.04.2022

Date of Order:    13.04.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps:                           None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                  

Case of the complainant in short is that he is a consumer being account holder of State Bank of India in the Branch of O.P no.2 having S.B.Account bearing No.00000020068450384.  The complainant on 27.9.21 transferred a sum of 10,000/- through “Yono Lite App to one Santosh Mohanty of Badamba who hadBank Account no.5238101002231 in the Canara bank.  On verification it was found by the complainant that the transaction made by him through online was successful but the said amount was not credited to the Bank A/c of said Santosh Mohanty but a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deducted on 27.9.2021 from his bank account.  The complainant intimated the O.P no.2 about non-transfer of money,  so also reminded to him several occasions through e.mails which yielded no result.  Lastly, the complainant had sent advocate’s notice to O.P no.2 as well as to the A.G.M,Customer Service but the O.Ps did not take any step for redressal of his grievances.  Hence, he has filed the present case with the prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/-, compensate him a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards humiliation, harassment and unfair trade practice as well as a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

          In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed some documents.

2.       Out of the two O.Ps, O.P no.2 only appeared before this Commission but has not filed his written version.  Hence, both the O.Ps are set exparte.  However, O.P no.2 has filed written notes of submission and participated in the hearing of this case.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

          i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.ii.

The complainant has a S.B.Account bearing no.00000020068450384 in the branch of O.P no.2.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 27.9.21 he had transferred a sum of Rs.10,000/- to one Santosh Mohanty of Badamba, who hadBank having A/c no.5238101002231 in Canara Bank.  The complainant has filed xerox copy of “Yono Lite App” transaction wherefrom it reveals that Rs.10,000/- has been transferred successfully but there is no other evidence on his behalf which would enlighten us that the complainant had sent the money to said Santosh Mohanty of Badamba.  The complainant has not filed the document reflecting the Bank Account number of said Santosh Mohanty and IFSC Code etc, while transferring money through “Yono Lite App”.  It reveals from the “Yono Lite (SBI) mPassbook” that on 27.9.21 a sum of  Rs.10,000/- has been transferred from the S.B. Account of the complainant.  Hence, it is doubtful, whether the complainant had transferred the said amount of Rs.10,000/- to the intended person or to someone else.  The O.P no.2 was set exparte but he participated in the hearing of the case and has filed statement of account of one Anasuya Devi Sahoo of Uttar Pradesh having Account bearing no.5328101002231 which reveals that the amount transferred by the complainant has been transferred to her Account. Hence, it is in doubt whether the complainant had furnished the correct intended Bank A/c. number or not while transferring money and had transferred the money by following due procedure by online through the “Yono Lite App”.  The complainant has to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and having not done so, it cannot be said that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service.  Hence, this issue is answered against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13^th day of April,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                     Member

 

                                                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                       President