Orissa

Rayagada

CC/37/2017

Chinmayee Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manger SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  37/ 2017.                                              Date.     7   .     3  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Smt.  Chinmayaee Saho,   W/O:  Sri  Smruti  Ranjan Sahoo,  C/O: SwamyNilay (in front of  IOB) B.C. Road, Po: J.K.Pur, Dist:Rayagada,  765 017  (Odisha)                                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.TheBramch   Manager, State Bank of India, Kabatabandha Branch, At/Po: Jenapur,, Dist: Rayagada.                                                                                    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps:- Sri N.N.Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non credit of  an amount a sum of Rs.4,500/- to the S.B. account No. 33477314851  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are  summarized here under.

That  the complainant   had tried  to withdraw a sum of Rs.4,500/- from  SBI ATM   J.K.Pur  on Dt. 8.1.2017.   Unfortunately the complainant  was unable to receive the said amount from ATM but  the above amount  debited from his  Saving account. Again the complainant  had tried for another withdrawal forRs.4,500/- from the ATM in the same date and got the said amount. After enquiry the  complainant  was found that  Rs.4,500/- was debited twice  from  the S.B. account  of the complainant  where as the withdrawal limit from Saving account was Rs.4,500/- per  day  as per Govt. restriction during  demonetization  period.  Immediately the complainant was lodged complaint to the customer care as well as at SBI, Kabatabandha Branch.  The  O.Ps official said that the case will be resolved in 7(seven) working days. After  completion of  one week the complainant was not got any money.  According to the official, the complainant was  lodged 2^nd. Complaint  before the O.P.,  but unable to got the   above  amount. Hence this C.C. case. The  complainant  prays the forum direct the O.P to credit  a sum of Rs.4,500/- to the S.B. account of the complainant and allow such other relief as the  forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another 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.P. Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the O.P   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 touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record we observed  it is not disputed  that the complainant is a S.B. account holder bearing account No. 33477314851. On perusal of the written version filed by the O.P.  it is revealed that  the O.P. was issued  A.T.M. card  in favour of the complainant to operate his account No.33477314851 and for operating the above account the complainant has to use a secret pass word for its successful transaction.

The O.P.  in their  written version contended that the complainant  had taken money from the ATM  on Dt. 7.1.2017 around  22.47 under  transaction No. 9293  a sum of Rs.4,500/- as per ATM Transaction, the  transaction was success full  (copies of the   same is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).  Again on Dt. 8.1.2017 the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,500/- under the transaction No. 9376 and the transaction  was  successful.  However in the bank statement  both the transaction  were  mentioned on Dt. 8.1.2017  for which the complainant complained against the bank that  the  complainant had not taken the money twice from the ATM on Dt.8.1.2017.  The O.P. further  contended that  the complainant had  taken the  money from the ATM on Dt. 7.1.2017 around  22.47 and the transaction  could  not be carried  out on that day i.e. on Dt. 7.1.2017  either due to system failure or internet breakdown. The  complainant used to take money from the  bank for number of times  daily and also the money  was taken by the complainant on Dt.7.1.2017  was  carried out on Dt. 8.1.2017. So the statement  of accounts shows that the complainant  had taken  the money  two times on the same day.

The averments of the O.P. with supporting documents  was not denied by the  complainant, since he had received the money  from the  ATM.  Considering the submission of both the parties  the report of successful transaction reported by the O.P.  in this case.  Hence the complainant is not entitled any relief from   this forum in the present case in hand.

 

Hence to  meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

In  resultant   the complaint petition stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this          7 ^th.   day of   March, 2019.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                            PRESIDENT