IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /88/2014.
Date of Filing: 02.07.2014. Date of Final Order: 02.03.2016.
Complainant: 1. Indra Banerjee, W/O Ranjit Kumar Banerjeee,
2. Shovan Banerjee, S/O Ranjit Kumar Banerjee,
Both of 251, Bishnupur Road, P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Berhampore Branch.
P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
2. Sri Biren Kumar Pattanaik, Chief Grievance Redressal Officer,
General Maager(Legal Compliance, RTI & Customer service), United Bank of India,
Head Office, 9th Floor, United Tower-11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kol-1
3. The Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Customer Service Department-II,
Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kol-1.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying for refund of Rs.48, 187.25 plus compensation of Rs.1.5 lac for harassment and agony.
The complaint’s case, in brief, is that the complainant suddenly on 9.10.13 and 10.10.13 received three and one SMS stating that Rs.12018.10, 607155, 6071.55 and 24026.05 respectively were debited in his savings Bank Account with OP No.1 and found that in total Rs. 48,187.25 was debited in his savings Bank Account No. 0229015064571 but no such transaction was made by anybody from his impugned bank account. Then, the complainant No.2 went to OP No.1 Bank informed the incident and Bank Officer told that he has not listed the account and as per instruction of the bank he surrendered his ATM/Debit Card and submitted a written complaint to Op no.1 on 17.10.13. On 23.11.13 and 25.11.13 the said money was refunded. Again on 27.11.13 the complaint found that the said amount was withdrawn without intimating them. On 29.11.13 Op no.3 wrote letter to the complainant initiating with assurance that the matter has been taken up with Op No.1 & 2 for solution. Thereafter, having no result the complainant wrote to Op Nos. 1 to 3 about negligence, fraud practice but no action taken from their end. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letter to –OP/Bank on 4.3.14 and ultimately on 6.5.14 which was received by them on 7.5.14 but no result. Then the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complaint petition.
The written version filed by Op No.1, in brief, is that the OP has denied the entire allegations of the complainant. Due to use of debit card in foreign country (as per statements shown in electronic journal) the amount of Rs.48, 187.25 was debited from the SB account of the complaint
on different times showing the code “0” which indicates the successful transaction. But unfortunately due to some technical error of the system of United Bank of India at the relevant point of time the said amount was credited to the account of the complainant. This is purely a technical fault. The correspondences of the complainant were sent to Head Office Reconciliation Department. On 27.11.13 reconciliation department informed that the transaction as mentioned above was successful, but that was wrongly credited to the account of complainant. Bank is authorized to debit the amount which was wrongly credited. Accordingly, the OP-Bank has correctly debited the same and informed the complainant . On 20.02.2014 the debit card was hot-listed at the request of the complainant. This OP has served this complainant with his full effort. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the complainants have any locus standi to file the present case?
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the case is hit by mis-joinder of parties?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainants are entitled?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 6.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
This complaint is for refund of Rs.48, 187.25 plus compensation of Rs.1.5 lac for harassment and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainants never went to Korea and wrongly shown three successful transactions on 9.10.13 and one transaction on 10.10.13 totalling to Rs.48, 187.25 which was refunded by crediting the same on complaint. Subsequently, without intimating again debited the same claiming that the earlier transactions were successful. Written complaint was made on different occasions. Ultimately, wrote to Ops on 6.5.14 but no result.
On the other hand, the OP has claimed that Due to use of debit card in foreign country (as per statements shown in electronic journal) the amount of Rs.48, 187.25 was debited from the SB account of the complainant on different times showing the code “0” which indicates the successful transaction. But unfortunately due to some technical error of the system of United Bank of India at the relevant point of time the said amount was credited to the account of the complainant. This is purely a technical fault. The correspondences of the complainant were sent to Head Office Reconciliation Department. On 27.11.13 reconciliation department informed that the transaction as mentioned above was successful, but that was wrongly credited to the account of complainant. Bank is authorized to debit the amount which was wrongly credited. Accordingly, the OP-Bank has correctly debited the same and informed the complainant. On 20.02.2014 the debit card was hot-listed at the request of the complainant.
The main case of the complainant is that the OP Bank wrongly shown transactions through ATM at Korea at the relevant time.
To prove the case both parties have filed relevant documents.
To prove the complainant’s case, the most vital document is the Pass-port and Vissa to show that he was not present at that that time in Korea.
But, the complainant has not filed any such Pass-port, visa of the complainant to establish that at the relevant time he was not present in Korea.
On the other hand the OP/Bank has filed a document showing the original international transaction both at Berhampore and Korea which shows that at the relevant time transactions were successful.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has challenged the impugned document filed by the OP-Bank as to the authenticity of the said document as it bears no seal and signature.
In this regard we find that subsequently the Ld. Lawyer for the OP-Bank has put his signature in the said documents to make the documents authenticated.
Also, there is no other cogent document particularly the Pass-port and Visa of the complainant.
There is nothing to disbelieve the documents filed by the OP-Bank.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the impugned transaction was successful and for adequate reasons the Bank credited the said account in favour of the complainant. Subsequently, on the basis of the confirmation from the re-conciliation Department that the impugned transaction was successful, accordingly debited the amount from the account of the complainant correctly. On the basis of the above discussions, we can safely conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and as such the case be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 88/2014 be and the same is dismissed as there is no merit in this case.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
