West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/44/2013

Sri Siddhartha Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.44/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 20/09/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. Swapan Bhattacharjya. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. Das & Mr. A. Bhagat. Advocate.

          

Sri Siddhartha Saha, Son of Late Subhas Ch. Saha, Vill- Deuli, P.O. & P.S. Belda,, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1)  The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Belda Branch at  Belda, P.O.  Belda,      

      District- Paschim Midnapore   

 2) The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, At Belda, P.O.-Belda, Dist-Paschim

      Medinipur. ……………………Ops.                                                    

                The case of the complainant, Sri Siddhartha Saha, in brief, is that he on 11/01/2013 tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Twenty five hundred) only  out of his SB-A/C no.1214000100212815, but it was refused due to insufficient fund. Again, thereafter, on the same day he tried to withdraw from ATM counter of Op no.1 P.N.B.  This time he was also refused on the same ground.  Upon inquiry he came to know that a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) only was withdrawn from his account.  The complainant was astonished with the op no.1 P.N.B.  In this connection Op no.1 assured the complainant that the money will be adjusted within 18/1/2013.  On subsequent day the complainant went to P.N.B. and came to know that the adjustment was not taken place.  Again the bank assured him and the adjustment will be done by 22/1/2013.  Ultimately, the matter of adjustment was rejected.  Stating the case, the complainant prays for necessary direction for adjustment of Rs.20, 000/- (twenty thousand) (?) with interest and award of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) only.

            Op no.1 P.N.B. contested the case by filing W/O challenging the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  The case of the complainant is categorically denied.  It is stated in the W/O that the complainant used A.T.M. of U.B.I. for Rs.2,500/- (Twenty five hundred) only but

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

unsuccessful due to in sufficient balance.  Thereafter, the complainant tried for Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) only and became successful.  Accordingly, the amount has been debited from his account.  In view of the matter it is prays for dismissal of the case.

               Op no.2 U.B.I. has also contested the case similarly claiming the dismissal of the case for want of cause of action.  It is specifically stated that the complainant used U.B.I. A.T.M., Belda on 11/01/2013, due to insufficient fund he was refused.  The complainant has SB A/C with P.N.B, Belda.  So, the matter is concerned with P.N.B. Op no.1 not with U.B.I. Op no.2.  Thus, the Op no.2 claims for dismissal of the case against the Op no.2-Bank.

                                                    Decisions with reasons :

                Upon careful consideration of the case of both parties it appears that the complainant claims for debit of Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) only is illegal as he has not drawn the amount.  The specific case is that he attempted to withdraw consecutively but was refused on the same ground of shortage of fund in his SB-A/C.  whereas, Op no.1 P.N.B. claims that attempts were unsuccessful for shortage of fund but attempt was successful when the complainant attempted to withdraw Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) only on the ground of the fact  that the said sum was within the amount as stands on that day.  Accordingly, the withdrawn amount Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) only was shown debited from his account.

                In order to support the case, the complainant failed to produce the legal evidence. Mere claim for deficiency in service against the Op no.1 without any convincing and dependable evidence cannot be admissible in the eye of law in the case particularly where the Ops.are showing strong evidence in order to convince us that the complainant has withdrawn Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) only after being unsuccessful to withdraw Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five hundred) only due to shortage of fund in his account.  In such a case, it is the duty of the complainant to effectively establish his own case by virtue of legal evidence.  Here no such evidence has been produced from the end of complainant with a view to dispel the case of the Ops.

                   Under the fact and circumstances as discussed here in above,  it is held and decided  that there is no case of deficiency in service against the Ops as brought by the complainant in his case.  So, the case should be dismissed.

                                   Hence,

                                                It is ordered,

                                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.   

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur