Orissa

Rayagada

CC/208/2015

Sri Trilochan Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 208/ 2015.                                        Date.     4  .    4    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Trilochan Behera,  S/O: Paramananda Behera, Rohit Colony, 7^th. Line, Po/Dist:Rayagadai., State:  Odisha.                                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager, Punjab  National Bank,  Rayagada.
2. The Branch Manage, HDFC Bank, Rayagada.

… Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P:- In person.

For the O.P. No.2:- Set exparte.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non credit  of  amount a sum of Rs.10,000/-  by the O.Ps in the S.B. account   No. 480000010005606  of the complainant which was not  disbursed  from the ATM counter  on Dt.30.9.2014.

 

On being noticed the O.P. No.1   filed  written version and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No.1 taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps No. 1    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.2  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2.  Observing lapses of around 3 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2. The action of the O.P No.2 is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.2   was set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

The O.P No. 1   appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.P No.1   and  from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties where in vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                      FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the  record it  is revealed that  there is no dispute that the complainant  is a S.B. account holder of the O.P.No.1  bearing No. 480000010005606. Again  there is no dispute that the complainant  has withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on Dt.30.9.2014  from HDFC bank ATM, Rayagada     which was not came out from the ATM but the above amount has been debited from the account of the complainant(copies of the ATM  transaction   slip  which was  brought from the  ATM machine  one slip  was  withdrawal  transaction declined  and another  transaction  slip was brought  where  amount  of Rs.10,000/- was mentioned  withdrawn (copies of the 2 Nos. transaction  slips are in the file which is marked as Annexure-I and  Annexure-II.

The O.P. No.1  in their written version  admitted  that   a sum of Rs.10,000/- was dispensed by the machine on Dt. 30.9.2014 vide transaction No. 6451 and the transaction No. 6452 declined due to the reason mentioned in the transaction  slip. 

Further the O.P. No.1  in their written version  admitted  the complaint  of the  complainant and  submitted  that the matter was taken up  immediately with  their Head office, New Delhi  for redressal  of the complaint .  Again  the   O.P. No.1  submitted that  the Head office  of the O.P. No.1 has supplied  the following information   i.e. (1)  Switch and settlement  report  (2) J.P. log  (3) ATM reconciliation report  Dtd. 1.10.2014   to resolve the above dispute.

At  this stage this forum observed   the interest of justice  would met if  the O.P.  No.1 will  credit the amount a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the S.B. account of the complainant with  up-to-date  Savings bank interest.

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In  resultant  the complaint petition  stands allowed in part  against the O.Ps on contest.

The O.P. No.1 is ordered to credit the amount a sum of Rs.10,000/- if not credited  in tothe S.B. account of the complainant with  up-to-date  Savings bank interest.

The O.P. No.2 is  ordered  refer the matter to the O.P. No.1  for early compliance of this order. There is no  order as to cost.  Supply the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this          4 ^th.   Day of  April,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President