BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 62/11.
THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Syed Aleemuddin S/o. Syed Allabaksha, aged about 56
years, Occ:Agriculturist, R/o. H.No. 12-11-78, Arab Mohalla, Raichur- 584101.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Canara Bank Main Branch Raichur,
represented by its Branch Manager.
CLAIM : For directing the bank to reimburse the amount
of Rs. 7,610/- with an amount of Rs. 500/- legal notice charge and compensation with other reliefs
as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
Date of institution :- 05-09-11.
Notice served :- 19-09-11.
Date of disposal :- 30-12-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Sripad, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. K.Raghavendra Rao, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Syed Aleemuddin against the opposite Canara Bank, Branch Raichur for directing the bank to reimburse the amount of Rs. 7,610/- with an amount of Rs. 500/- legal notice charge and compensation with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he is the customer of opposite bank since 12 years. There was no complaint against opposite from him and also opposite bank has no complaint towards him in all these years. Unfortunately on 03-06-2011 opposite bank debited an amount of Rs. 7610/- from his S.B. Account without informing it to him or any instructions by him, after noticing the fact, he approached opposite bank for to rectify their mistakes and to credit an amount of Rs. 7,610/- to his S.B. Account. Opposite not shown interest to consider his request by giving unwarranted reasons therefore this complaint is filed against the bank for the reliefs as noted in his complaint.
3. Opposite bank appeared in this case through Advocate, filed its written version by admitting its relationship with complainant and having S.B. Account in its bank and also admitted fact of receiving Rs. 7,610/- on 30-11-09 and credited to the account of complainant by oversight which came from NEFT, the amount was credited in the S.B. account of the complainant as per cheque of HDFC Bank. On 30-11-09 same was sent for clearance to Mumbai and clearance was rejected on 01-12-09. But the amount was credited to the account of complainant by oversight due to quoting of wrong account number, the amount was returned to sender NEFT, thereafter the amount was sent to the account of complainant on 23-11-09. But the sender NEFT rejected the message, they have requested several times but bank rejected the message for want of correct account number. The change in operating procedure of the bank, there was some confusion in the mind of complainant, there was no deficiency in service on its part, accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite bank without his instructions and without informing to him or for any other valid reasons, debited the amount of Rs. 7,610/- in his S.B. Account maintained in the bank of opposite and thereafter it shows its negligence in crediting that amount to his S.B. Account even after several oral and written requests and thereby opposite bank found guilty under deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Manager of the complainant was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 are marked. Rejoinder are also filed.
7. In view of the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents filed by them. We have noticed some of the following undisputed facts in between the parties are:-
1. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant is having S.B. A/c. bearing No. 0519108033879 in the opposite bank.
2. It is further undisputed fact that, bank received an amount of Rs. 7,610/- on 30-11-09 and it was credited to the account of complainant.
3. It is further undisputed fact that, on 03-06-11 opposite bank debited an amount of Rs. 7610/- without informing it to the complainant and without his instructions.
8. Keeping in view of these undisputed facts, now let us examine the case of complainant as regard to the alleged negligence shown by opposite bank.
9. Documents Ex.P-1 the Statement of Account of the complainant issued by the opposite bank shows that on 03-06-2011 it debited Rs. 7,610/- as withdrawal. Document Ex.R-1 produced by the bank message report for accepting that amount. The case of opposite bank with regard to debiting an amount of Rs. 7,610- is very much clear that it was debited in the account complainant without giving notice or knowledge to the complainant. That amount was debited, from his account with a simple reason that, it was credited by oversight as it came from NEFT. The evidence of complainant and the evidence of PW-2 clearly goes to show that, the said amount was sent by PW-2 to the complainant and accordingly that amount was credited to his account. The say of opposite that the amount received by cheque of HDFC Bank on 30-11-09 and the same was sent for clearance to Mumbai but by oversight credited to the account of complainant due to quoting of wrong account number. The amount was returned to sender NEFT.
10. This defence taken by the opposite bank is not correct. Whatever may be the reason for sending back the amount to NEFT, bank should have informed that fact to the complainant before debiting the amount. The documents produced by the complainant goes to show that, opposite bank allowed the complainant to operate his account by mentioning last five digits of his account number. There are receipts issued by bank itself with regard to previous transactions. The account number mentioned in the previous instances shows last five digits which are correct as shown in this earlier transaction. Hence, the contention of bank that, there was wrong account number is not correct. The bank authorities have not collected the supportive documents from HDFC Bank at Mumbai or to which bank it sent for collection. Mere debiting the amount for fault of it shows negligence, the innocent customers of the bank should not suffer for the fault of bank. Hence we have noticed some negligence of the opposite bank towards its customer complainant with regard to this transaction. The other explanation offered by the bank for its act are not acceptable, hence we noticed deficiency in service on the part of opposite to the complainant, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. Admittedly an amount of Rs. 7,610/- debited from account of complainant by the bank is wrong, as such, the complainant is entitled to get that amount from the opposite bank. The complainant also entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service from the opposite bank. He also entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation. Hence, totally complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 12,610/- from the opposite bank with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this judgment till realization of the full amount. Accordingly we answered Point No-2
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 12,610/- from opposite bank.
The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 12,610/- from the date of this judgment till realization of the full amount.
Opposite is hereby granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-12-11)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur.
