By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed by Anitha, D/o. Rajan, Kaithakkal House, 117, Amrita Nagar, Pulpally Post against The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Pulpally and another as Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

            2.  The Complainant states that she is the holder of SB Account No.0863108020797 of the Opposite Party Bank (Canara Bank) in its Pulpally Branch and her customer ID number is 56583762.  The Complainant alleges that she had understood that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn on 07.09.2017, and an amount of Rs.12,000/- withdrawn on 16.04.2018, Rs.2,000/- withdrawn on 27.04.2018 and Rs.9,500/-  withdrawn on 30.06.2018 and thereby a total of Rs.33,500/- was withdrawn from her account without her consent and knowledge. The Complainant further alleges that she had not gone to the Opposite Party Bank on any of the above dates of withdrawal and had not withdrawn any amount.  It is stated that the Complainant had filed a petition on 07.07.2018 before the 1^st Opposite Party intimating about the loss of money and it was told by the 1^st Opposite Party that the complaint was forwarded to the 2^nd Opposite Party, which is the higher office of the 1^st Opposite Party.

            3.  Complainant states that the amount deposited by the Complainant was earned by her from guaranteed wage employment.  The Complainant therefore prays for issuing orders to the Opposite Party to return the amount of Rs.33,500/- withdrawn from her account along with 18% interest and also for a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

            4.  Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Parties appeared before the Commission and filed their version, in which Opposite Parties stated that the complaint itself is not maintainable and the averment that the amount withdrawn from the account of the Complainant is without her consent and signature are totally false and denied by the Opposite Parties.  In the version it is stated by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant herself came to the Bank and withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,000/- on 27.04.2018, Rs,9,500/- on 03.07.2018, Rs.9,500/- on 30.06.2018, Rs.12,000/- on 16.04.2018 and Rs.10,000/- on 07.09.2017,  by signing on  the vouchers and other documents.  The statement of the Complainant that she had filed a complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party and that the 1^st Opposite Party assured to return the amount are also false.  Hence there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            5.  Ext.A1 to A3 marked from the side of the Complainant and Ext.X1 series marked from the side of the Opposite Party.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and from the side of Opposite Parties OPW1 and OPW2 were examined.

            6.  Ext.A1 is a Pass Book issued by the 1^st Opposite Party Bank in favour of the Complainant with Account No.0863108020797, the Customer ID of which is 56583762.  Ext.A2 is a copy of Letter filed by the Complainant before the 1^st Opposite Party with acknowledgment and Ext.A3 is a statement of the Bank Account of the Complainant.  Ext.X1 series produced from the side of the Bank contains the following documents.

1. Specimen signature card dated 28.09.2017 of the Complainant
2. Withdrawal slip dated 27.04.2018 for Rs.2,000/-
3. Withdrawal slip dated 03.07.2018 for Rs.9,500/-
4. Withdrawal slip dated 30.06.2018 for Rs.9,500/-
5. Withdrawal slip dated 16.04.2018 for Rs.12,000/- (not seen zealed by the Bank)
6. Withdrawal slip dated 07.09.2017 for Rs.10,000/-.

7.  The following are the important points to analise to bring out the facts to derive into an inference regarding the gist of the complaint.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the Complainant had proved her case and deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
3. If so, the compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant?

8.  Heard both sides.  On going through the complaint and also on perusing the evidence from the side of the Complainant, it can be seen that the Complainant was holding an SB Account with the 1^st Opposite Party Bank and her Account No.0863108020797 and customer ID No. 56583762 which  seems to be in par with that stated in the complaint.

9.    The first question is to be answered is regarding the maintainability which was heard and decided by the Commission earlier in favour of the Complainant during the course of the complaint itself.  Therefore Point No.2 and 3 are only to be decided now. 

10. The Complainant had stated that she had come to know that a total amount of Rs.33,500/- was withdrawn from her account on different dates without her knowledge and therefore she had filed a complaint on 07.07.2018 before the 1^st Opposite Party.  She also had stated that she had not gone to the Bank on any of the said dates of transaction.  But the Complainant had not produced before the Commission, the copy of the complaint filed by her before the Opposite Party on 07.07.2018.  Moreover it was possible for the Complainant to move the Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to produce the CCTV footage pertaining to the dates of the alleged transactions at the time of filing the complaint.  Even though an application was filed by the Complainant for issuing such a direction, it was too late since the complaint was filed in 2018 and the request for the above purpose was made only in 2023,  which is after a lapse of 5 years.  By that time the Opposite Parties had deleted the data and therefore the authenticity to ascertain the genuinity of the argument of the Complainant regarding that aspect is also became futile.

11.  The Opposite Parties have produced Ext.X1 series along with withdrawal form.  The authenticity of the signature in it is also not known and had not brought out with the assistance of a finger print expert.

12.  At the time when  the Complainant was examined in box the Complainant had deposed that “Ext.A2 hn Fsâ H¸mWv. Ext.X1  Fsâ H¸Ã. Ext.X1  1þmw tcJbn Fsâ H¸mWv 2þmw tcJbn Fsâ H¸Ã.  Rm³ t\cn«v h¶v ]Ww ]n³hen¨sX¶v FXrI£n version  ]dªn«pffXv.  AXpsIm­v BbXv Expert  \v hnSm³ th­n Peition file sNbvXn«p­v.  Sn lÀPn ]n³hen¨n«nà Rm³ Adnªn«nÃ. Expert sâ ASp¯p sN¶m \n§fpsS H¸mWv F¶dnbp¶XpsIm­v ]n³hen¨n«pffXv F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ.  ]Ww ]n³hen¨Xv BcmsW¶v F\n¡dnbnÃ.  \nj Du¶pItàF¶hÀ ktlmZcnbmWv.  \nj Du¶pItàBWv ]Ww ]n³hen¨sX¶v lead bank  ]cmXn sImSp¯t¸mÄ ]dªn«p­v”.  It is also deposed by PW1 that no police complaint is given and she had filed complaint only to the Lead bank.

13. On the other hand OPW1 who is the present Manager of the Opposite Party Bank deposed that he has no direct knowledge about the transaction during the period in question and he come to know the same only from the records available in the Bank.

14.  OPW2 is the Manager of the Opposite Party Bank for the period from June 2017 to May 2019 who knows the Complainant personally.  He deposed that “_m¦n AhÀ t\cn«v ]cmXn H¶pw \ÂInbncp¶nÃ.  AhÀ _m¦n h¶v ]e XhW ]Ww ]n³hen¨n«p­v”.  He further deposed that “AhÀ ombudsman apJm´ncw ]cmXn kaÀ¸n¨ncp¶Xv _m¦n\v e`n¨ncp¶p.  AXn\v adp]Sn sImSp¯ncp¶p.  B tIkv ]cmXn icnbÃm¯Xn\m close sNbvXncp¶p.  ]ns¶ CDRC bn \n¶v t\m«okv h¶t¸mgmWv Adnbp¶Xv”.

15.  It can be seen from the evidences tht the amounts stated in the complaint by the Complainant was withdrawn from her account which she denied by stating that such withdrawals were not made by her.

16.  It is the duty of the Complainant to prove her case with specific evidences which is not discharged by her.  The Complainant had merely denied the signature in the withdrawal slip at the time of examination.  Mere denial of the signature in the withdrawal slips produced by the Opposite Party alone cannot be taken in to account as proof of the evidence.

17.  Since there is no expertise for the Commission to verify and to derive into the exactness of the signature and the handwriting in the withdrawal slips, this Commission cannot reach in to a definite inference regarding the genuinity of the disputed withdrawal and hence the Commission cannot ascertain and determine any is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party Bank and hence the Commission found that the Complainant had not proved Point No.2.

18.  Since Point No.2 is found against the Complainant, the Point No.3 is not considered by the Commission.

In the above circumstances Consumer Case (CC No.136/2018) is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18^th day of December 2023.

Date of Filing:-17.08.2018.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Anitha.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Lijesh. E. Joseph.                            Bank Employee.

OPW2.          Amal. S. Kumar.                              Senior Manager, Canara Bank.

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

A1.                  Bank pass book issued by Canara Bank to the Complainant.

A2.                  Complaint given to the Lead Bank.                   Dt:03.06.2022.

A3.                  Statement of Account for the period from 01.07.2017 to

07.07.2018.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

X1(Series).    Specimen Signature and Cash Withdrawal Slips produced by

Opposite Party (6 Numbers).                

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-