Punjab

Sangrur

CC/37/2017

Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajan Kapil

03 May 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 37                                                                                          

                                                                  Instituted on:   24.01.2017                                                                                   

                                                               Decided on:    03.05.2017

 

1.     Randhir Singh son of Dalip Singh resident of              Village Uppal Kheri, District Sangrur.
2.     Gurmail Singh son of Gurdev Singh resident of   Village Bhurthla Mander, Tehsil Malerkotla,    District Sangrur.          

                                                …. Complainants

                                Versus

 

1.      State Bank of Patiala Branch Malerkotla ADB Moti Bazar, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     State  Bank of Patiala Branch Bhurthla Mander, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.                            

                                                ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT     :      Shri Rajan Kapil Advocate                           

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES        :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate                        

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Randhir Singh and  Gurmail Singh, complainants have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 2.1.2017 he ( complainant no.1) visited the bank  for depositing Rs.40,000/- in the account of the complainant no.2  and filled a voucher with OP no.1 but instead of transfer of Rs.40,000/- from the account of the complainant no.1  OPs transferred Rs.40,000/-  from the account  of complainant no.2 in account of complainant no.1. On 03.01.2017  both complainants  visited the OP no.1 and officials  of bank advised them to fill voucher of Rs.80,000/-  to transfer the amount in the account of complainant no.2 as the official of OP no.1 admitted that mistake has been done.  On 03.01.2017  OPs credited  the account of complainant no.2 with Rs.40,000/- without obtaining any deposit voucher from Gurmail Singh complainant which  clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainants have sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of mental agony and harassment,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5500/- as counsel fee,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs,  it is submitted that  due to mistake and fault of computer system the amount Rs.40,000/- could not be transferred in the account of complainant no.2 and amount was transferred from the account of complainant no.2 in the account of complainant no.1 and this mistake was not intentional. It is also submitted that  when this fault came to the notice of Bank officials, the  bank officials corrected the mistake and deposited the amount in the account of Gurmail Singh complainant no.2 with the consent of both complainants. It is further submitted that complainants also filled the voucher on 03.01.2017 and signed the same. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

3.             The complainants in their  evidence have tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed evidence.

4.             It is not disputed on record that the Ops have wrongly transferred an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the account of the complainant no.2 to the account of the complainant no.1 instead of transferring the same from the account of complainant no.1 to the account of complainant no.2 as the OPs have admitted in their reply that due to mistake and fault of computer system the amount of Rs.40,000/- could not be transferred in the account of complainant no.2 and amount was transferred from account of complainant no.2 in the account of complainant no.1 and this mistake was not intentional and when this fault came to the notice of Bank officials, the bank officials corrected the mistake  and deposited the amount in the account of Gurmail Singh complainant no.2 with the consent of complainants on 03.01.2017.  The complainants have admitted that on 3.1.2017 the OPs credited the account of complainant no.2 with Rs.40,000/-  but they stated that when they demanded account statement of both the accounts, they were forced to fill voucher of Rs.40,000/-  and then OP no.1 will issue the account statement. The OPs have produced on record copy of letter/ request application written by  Gurmail Singh complainant no.2 to Manager State Bank of Patiala, Malerkotla Ex.OP-3 wherein it has been stated by Gurmail Singh that wrong entry has been corrected by the bank on 03.01.2017 and  he has no grievance against the OPs bank now. He has also stated that Randhir Singh himself filled a new voucher on 3.1.2017 and signed the same.  So, we find no force in the version of the complainants that they were forced by the OPs for filling up a new voucher.

5.             The complainant has cited a ruling namely  Assam Import Agency Limited Vs. Chief Manager, UCO Bank & Another, 1997 (2) C.P.J. 349  wherein  Hon'ble Rajasthan State Commission has held that mistakes  in credit and debit entries in the current account of complainant were committed on five occasions within short period of nine months. In addition, two cheques worth Rs.50,000/- each were dishonoured although sufficient balance was available in the account of  complainant and bank is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- to the complainant. We feel that said ruling is not applicable to the facts of the  present case as in the instant case the entry was corrected by the OPs within a short period and OPs admitted their mistake due to computer system.

6.             Although  the OPs had corrected  the wrong entry  by  back transferring the amount of Rs.40,000/- from the account of the complainant no.1 to the account of  complainant no.2 within a short time  but we feel  that due to this act  of the OPs the complainants suffered inconvenience for which the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.  

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainants consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of deficiency in service.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                    Announced

                May 3, 2017

 

 

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                   Member                      Member                      President

 

BBS/-