DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA,  CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/215

Date of Institution : 27.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 21.06.2022

Mrs. Charanjit Kaur W/o Sh. Santokh Singh R/o Village Kaleke, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. …Complainant

Versus

State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India through its Chairman/ Managing Director/Principal Officer Service Through its Branch Office at Baba Bakala, District Amritsar through its Branch Manager. 

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986

Present: Sh. Inderjit Lakhra Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. GS Sachdeva Adv counsel for the opposite party. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against State Bank of Patiala now State Bank of India, Baba Bakala. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is having her account No. 55061334864 with the opposite party. The said account of the complainant was debited by the opposite party for Rs. 10,000/- on 3.4.2017 with the particulars that the complainant had withdrawn the said amount from her account. But the complainant had never operated her said account on the said date nor she had withdrawn said amount and it seems that some unscrupulous person has done the said act and opposite party was not vigilant in making the said payment. The complainant was having her passbook in her custody which is pre condition for making the said alleged payment. The opposite party also not provided the particulars of the said payment nor reversed the said debit entry in her account. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% from 3.4.2017 till realization.  

2) To pay Rs. 80,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay adequate litigation expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and suppressed material facts. No cause of action arose to the complainant for filing the present complaint and present complaint is not maintainable. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the account of the complainant was rightly debited for Rs. 10,000/- on 3.4.2017 as the complainant herself had withdrawn the said amount from her bank account. The opposite party already supplied the copy of the voucher from which the complainant had withdrawn the said amount on 3.4.2017 and complainant already filed the same with her complaint. The complainant put her signature on the voucher itself as well as on the backside of the voucher. Due to non matching of signature of complainant the official of the opposite party again obtained signature of the complainant. Since complainant could not brought her pass book on 3.4.2017 and she requested the opposite party to make her payment as she is in dire need of money as she is residing at Village Kale Ke which is far away from bank and requested the bank to make payment without passbook. Lastly, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.   

6. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party   tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjay Ahuja Deputy Manager Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. 

9. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is having account with the opposite party bank. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been debited in the account of the complainant on 3.4.2017.  

10. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant never withdrawn the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 3.4.2017 from her account with the opposite party and never operated her account on the said date. He further argued that some unscrupulous person has done the said act and opposite party was not vigilant in making the said payment. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party argued that complainant herself withdrawn the said amount from her account and they already supplied the copy of the voucher to the complainant vide which the said amount has been withdrawn by the complainant from her account with the opposite party which is duly signed by the complainant on the front and backside of the voucher. 

11. The most important document on the file is the copy of voucher filed by the complainant Ex.C-2. We have perused this document very carefully. This document is duly signed by the complainant on its front side. Even this voucher Ex.C-2 also signed by the complainant on its back twice which duly proved that the complainant herself withdrawn the amount from her account with the opposite party. The complainant has denied the signatures on the withdrawal voucher Ex.C-2 but the complainant has not produced any expert evidence or handwriting expert to prove that the complainant had not signed the withdrawal voucher Ex.C-2. The onus to prove her case is on the complainant but she has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 

12. In view of the above discussion, as the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party so the present complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        21st Day of June 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member