DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the22nd day of October, 2019
C.D Case No. 63 of 2017
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Gobinda Sahoo
S/o Late Bhuban Sahoo
Vill: Chasakhanda,
Po: Khadipada,
Ps: Dhamnagar,
Dist: Bhadrak ……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
At/Po: Dobal,
Ps: Dhamnagar,
Dist: Bhadrak …………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri T.K. Das & Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP: Sri Jaminikanta Nayak, Adv
Date of hearing: 11.07.2018
Date of order: 22.10.2019
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP that the complainant had been sanctioned an Indira Abasa which was cost Rs 25,000/- in the year 2006-07 so the complainant obviously become a beneficiary. Initially on 22.01.2020 the OP Bank transferred the money of Rs 12,000/- to the account of the complainant bearing SB Account No. 015313 Uco Bank, Dhamnagar Branch. Subsequently A.B.D.O, Dhamnagar Block sent the cheque No. 001166 of dt. 29.03.206 amounting of Rs 65,000/- to transfer the amount to S.B account of G.Ps through R.T.G.S as per the schedule enclosed. The complainant had to pay Rs 13,000/- out of Rs 65,000/- from the OP Bank by transfer money to the account of the complainant through Uco Bank Dhamnagar. Although the money was already sent by a B.D.O Dhamnagar Block on 29.03.2016 through the cheque but the OP Bank did not transfer the rest amount of Rs 13,000/- to the complainant till 2016. In the mean time the OP Bank has not taken any necessary steps to transfer the money i.e. Rs 13,000/- to the account of the complainant. As a result the complainant has sustained irreparable loss to complete his house. Without finding any other alternative way the complainant sent a legal notice on 29.07.2017 to the OP by Regd. post with AD through his concerned advocate, requesting the OP to pay the rest amount Rs 13,000/- through his account but the OP did not pay any heed to that the complainant preferred the CD Case challenging his negligence, deficiency of service towards him and the cause of action arose on 29.03.2016. Hence the complainant has sought for the reliefs as follows.
1. The OP be directed to pay Rs 13,000/- to the complainant.
2. The complainant be awarded Rs 20,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the litigation.
The following documents have been filed by the complainant.
1. Vide No. 37 on dt. 30.10.2015- 1 sheet.
2. Forwarding letter regarding the issuance of cheque vide No. 001166 on dt. 29.03.2016 amounting to Rs 65,000/- 1 sheet.
3. Copy of the legal notice- 2 sheets.
4. Xerox copy of the pass book- 3 sheets.
The OP appeared through his concerned advocate in this Forum and filed his written version as follows that the OP has challenged maintainability of this case as well as the cause of action also. The OP has stated that the complainant is neither customer nor the consumer of the OP. The complainant has averred falsely suppressing the truth. The OP has no comments with regard to the Para No. 1 & 2. Further the complainant averred that the averments made in the Para No. 3, 4 & 5 of the complaint are partly true and partly false. It is not correct to state that this OP Bank have not transfer the amount of petitioner provided by A.B.D.O have not transferred to Uco Bank, Dhamnagar Branch. In fact on dt. 30.03.2016 the amount of petitioner Gobinda Sahu along with other persons amount which has been provided by A.B.D.O has already been transferred to their respective account at Uco Bank Dhamnagar Branch. The averment made in Para No. 6 of plain is denied by OP and that act done only for the purpose of this case. The complainant knowing it well that his Uco Bank account is not is operating condition to put a screen to his negligence on request to A.B.D.O on false allegation able to serve alterior through A.B.D.O Dhamnagar. The averments made in the Para No. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the complaint are strictly denied.
The fact is that the complainant has got his account vide No. 015313 in the Uco Bank Dhamnagar. In the year 2010 the amount which has been given by A.B.D.O to the account of complainant it was transfer by this OP Bank and as the complainant account was in operating condition he able to withdraw the same. On dt. 29.03.2016 an amount of Rs 13,000/- was not transferred by the A.B.D.O Dhamnagar and on dt. 30.03.2016 this Bank transferred through net process to Uco Bank account of complainant along with to the account of other 9 persons. It was the duty of complainant to ascertain the fact at Uco Bank Branch. But the complainant knowing it well that his Uco Bank account is not in operating condition he made false complain before A.B.D.O Dhamnagar and able to sent the letter dt. 21.09.2017 alleging that an amount sent on 20.09.2017 and that has not been credited to beneficiary account. As soon as the OP Bank got the information that the beneficiary have not get his amount from Uco Bank, Dhamnagar, this OP Bank sent a letter on dt. 18.09.2017 to query about the transactions made by S.B.I Branch to Uco Bank, Dhamnagar Branch. It is replied by the Uco Bank, Dhamnagar Branch that the account was in doormat status due to non transaction also blocked by them as per Bank procedure due to not submission of KYC by the account holder.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and written version filed by the complainant and the OP as well as the documents filed by him. According to this CP Act the consumer is defined as the any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other then the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
[hires or avails of] any services of a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [ hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
In this case the complainant is a beneficiary under the scheme of Indira Abas. The complainant is belonging to BPL cadre. So this case is not coming under the deficiency of service and dishonest trade practice. The consumer has neither paid for any service or goods nor promised to pay for the same in future. The complainant is not a consumer. The person those who is not a consumer he cannot seek any redressal under the D.C.D.R.F so this case is not maintainable. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed having no merit and maintainability.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 22nd October, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
