Date of filing :- 22/03/2013

Date of Order :- 20/01/2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Dispute Case No. 19 of 2013.

Narayan Pujahari, son of *Judhisteer Pujahari, aged about 58(fifty eight) years, Occupation-Retd. Govt. Servant, permanent resident of Ganthiapali, Po. Pananga, Ps. Tah. Bheden, Dist. Bargarh now residing at Khuntpali, Po. Khuntpali, Ps/Tah/Dist. Bargarh.

..... ..... ..... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch at Barapli Po/Ps/Tah/Dist. Bargarh .... .... .... Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant:- Sri S.P. Mishra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:- Sri D.Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt. 20/01/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .

(1) The Complainant namely Sri Narayanm Pujhari, who is a retired Govt. servant has filed this case before this Forum alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party Bank. The Complainant alleges that, he is the customer of the Opposite Party having S.B. Account No. 10856823051 at State Bank of India, Barpali Branch, Bargarh. He is also availing ATM facilities on his aforesaid bank account and accordingly an ATM card was provided by the Opposite Party in his favour to make transaction in ATM counter. On Dt. 27/01/2013, while the Complainant made a withdrawal from his account from the Opposite Party Bank through ATM card, to his utter surprise Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only was made less from his total account of his total deposit to which he has not made any withdrawal at any point of time. He made complaint on different date, time and occasion before the authorities of the Opposite Party verbally but they did not take any fruitful step in-respect of his complaint. That by such action of the Opposite Party, the Complainant was perturbed and disturbed in mind being unable to follow his daily pursuits and the marriage programme of his daughter was hampered and cancelled and he also suffered from mental agony and there was also uproar rise of his sugar level and blood pressure and as result he was unable to perform his daily duty. Finding no other way out the Complainant has filed this present Consumer complaint with a prayer to get back his fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only along with compensation for the loss, damage, litigation cost and harassment caused to him totalling to Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh) only during the relevant period. In support of his case, the Complainant has filed certain documents which are placed on record.

(2) The Opposite Party entered his appearance on Dt.14/05/2013 through learned counsels and filed his version on Dt.24/07/2013 resisting the claim of the Complainant as mis-conceived, baseless, untenable in law and facts and liable to be dismissed. While admitting the facts that the Complainant has an account with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party bank have provided the ATM facilities to the Complainant but has submitted that it is not the responsibility of the Opposite Party if the Complainant is put to any loss by using his ATM card by any person other than the card holder/Complainant, but keeping the ATM card with proper care and to keep the password secret and confidential is the duty of card holder. It has been further alleged by the Opposite Party that on Dt. 27/01/2013, the Complainant had made two withdrawals from his account through ATMs No.1(one) and 2(two) situated side by side. He made withdrawal of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only from ATM No.2(two) at 01:03 P.M. and Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only from ATM No.1(one) at 01:04 P.M. Since there were a total of two withdrawals on the relevant day and since the Complainant admits one withdrawal made by him other than Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only and since the said withdrawal obviously is of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only at 01:03 P.M., his allegation that during such withdrawal he was shocked to learn that Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only was found deficit at that time is not believable since the withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only was made subsequent to the withdrawal of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice.

(3) We have gone through the case in details and perused the documents filed on record. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and gone through the Affidavit and cross-examination of the parties. It is not disputed that Complainant is a customer of Opposite Party No.1(one) having S.B. Account No. 10856823051 and he was availing the facility of ATM transaction.

As per the allegation of the Complainant in his Complaint petition as well as in his Affidavit that, while he made a withdrawal from his account through ATM on Dt.27/01/2013, he learn that Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only was found deficit from his total balance. We perused the Account statement and transaction statement of the Complainant which reveals that withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only was made subsequent to the withdrawal of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only. It further reveals that after withdrawal of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only, the remaining balance in his account was Rs. 95,298.31/-(Rupees ninety five thousand two hundred ninety eighty and thirty one paise)only and after withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only the remaining balance was Rs. 75,298.31/-(Rupees seventy five thousand two hundred ninety eight and thirty one paise)only. The Complainant had made the next withdrawal from his account for an amount of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only on Dt.29/01/2013. During the cross-examination by the Opposite Party the Complainant also depose that:-

—› It is a fact that on Dt. 27/01/2013, when I made an withdrawal of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only, I found Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only was deficit.

—› The contents of para-3(three) of the Complaint petition is true.

—› It is true that the alleged withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only from any account is prior to withdrawal of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only on Dt.27/01/2013.

—› All the entries/transaction are correct except this alleged withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand)only.

—› Again say I can not say Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only was debited from any account prior to withdrawal of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only on Dt.27/01/2013.

So from the evidence tendered by the Complainant itself in the Affidavit as well as in cross-examination, it is clear that the Complainant has not come up with clean hand and the complaint of the Complainant does not tally with the documents and the deposition in the cross-examination. So the allegation of the Complainant can not be believable as withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only has made subsequent to the withdrawal of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only.

Further the Complainant mentioned in the complaint petition at para-4(four) that the complaint was made to the authorities of verbally. In the cross-examination also he depose that ..........

—› I have neither reported the matter in any branch nor filed any written complaint in any branch of bank. But he has filed a documents i.e. written complaint before the Forum which for their reveals that the complaint lodged the report on Dt.02/01/2013 to B.M. SBI, Sambalpur prior to the alleged transaction. So when the occurance took place on Dt. 27/01/2013, how the Complainant made Complaint on Dt. 02/01/2013 in advance. So, it transpires that this document is totally a manufactured one and looks to be forgery.

Further the Complainant has not filed any documents relating to the increase of sugar level or blood pressure from the doctor. He has also not filed any documents/ materials relating to be schedule of the marriage of his daughter.

The Complainant also neither lodged any F.I.R. before the local Police nor requested the bank authorities to get the C.C. TV footage of the alleged transaction to unfold the truth involved in the matter.

On the whole it is clear that, the Complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hand. Hence in the above circumstance, the case of the Complainant is here by dismissed, on contest but without any cost.

Case disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)

           P r e s i d e n t.

                                                                   I agree,                                                                    I agree, 

                                                   (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)                                          ( Smt. Anjali Behera)

                                                             M e m b e r.                                                                 M e m b e r.