Smruti Ranjan Sahoo filed a consumer case on 25 Jan 2019 against The Branch Manger SBI in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/38/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Mar 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 38/ 2017. Date. 25 . 1 . 2019
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President.
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, Member.
Smruti Ranjan Sahoo, C/O: Swamy Nilay (in front of IOB) B.C. Road, Po: J.K.Pur, Dist:Rayagada, 765 017 (Odisha) …. Complainant.
Versus.
1.The Bramch Manager, State Bank of India, J.K.P.M. Branch, At/Po: J.K.Pur, 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. 30064127850 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, JKPM 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 2nd. 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. 30064127850. 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. 30064127850 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 22.44 under transaction No. 9292 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. 9378 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 22.44 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 the resultant the complaint petition stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 25 th. day of January, 2019.
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.