IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/102/2016.
Date of Filing: 29.06.2016. Date of Final Order: 27.11.2017
Complainant: Bipad Sardar, S/O Late Kalipada Sardar, Vill. Kodbeltala, Boaliadanga,
P.O. Cossimbazar Raj, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Manager, Bank of India, 14, Bimal Singh Sarani, Laldighi,
P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………………President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …………………….Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee …………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for refund of Rs.40,000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for negligence and deficiency of service and Rs.25,000/- for harassment.
The complaint case, in brief, is that the complainant has a savings Bank a/c and used to withdraw and deposit money time to time and on 17.5.16 by a cheque No.49 withdrew Rs.90,000/- out of Rs.182,080.90 and balance was Rs.92080.90 but updating the Passbook on 0406.2016 he found and became astonished that on 25.5.16 by three occasions total Rs.35,000/- and on 27.5.16 on one occasion Rs.15,000/- was withdrawn. He did not withdraw such Rs.40, 000/-. Subsequently, the OP met with OP-Bank and informed the same but did not pay any heed to it. Then, the complainant sent advocate’s notice dt. 06.06,2016 upon the OP who received the same on 07.06.2016 but again did not give any response. Then, the complainant lodged the impugned complaint. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP, in brief, is that the complainant withdrew the sum of Rs.25,000/- on 25.5.2016 on three subsequent times through the A.T.M. of Bank of India, Sambiyaka More at Berhampore and that transaction ID are S3609027, S3616981 and S3611945. Thereafter, the complainant again withdrew the sum of Rs.15,000/- on 27.05.2016 through A.T. M of Bank of India, Judge Court More at Berhampore and that transaction ID is S8290636. The said transaction was reflected in the Account Ledger. Here, in this case the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 25.5.2016 on three subsequent occasions i.e. (10,000 +10,000 + 5,000) and again withdrew the sum of Rs.15,000/- on 27.5.2016 through A.T.M. So, the complainant’s pass book shows that the complainant has withdrew the same amount. But the complainant willfully did not mention the transactions dt. 25.5.2016 and 27.5.16. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prays for dismissal of the case. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleading of the parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Point for Decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any locus standi to the file the present case?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file the present case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for refund of Rs.40, 000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs.25, 000/- for negligence and deficiency of service and Rs.25, 000/- for harassment.
The complainant’s main case is for refund of Rs.40,000/- withdrawn on four occasions on two days from two different ATM Booths by some miscreants and not by the complainant.
On the other hand the OP-Bank has categorically denied the allegation of the complainant. The complainant has withdrawn the alleged money using ATM card and he is in the practice of withdrawing money using ATM card. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-bank.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence on-affidavit along with relevant documents in support of his case.
On the other hand the OP-Bank has adduced bank statement showing several other transactions through ATM besides the alleged four transactions on two dates to prove that the complainant is in the habit of transactions through ATM all along even before and after the alleged transactions on 25.05.2016 and 27.05.2016.
In this case CCTV footage has not brought in evidence by either side. Also, the same is not available because the alleged incident took place on 25.05.2016 and 27.05.2016 and period of validity of the footage has already been expired.
Further there is no case of theft of ATM Card and leakage of PIN number of the concerned ATM Card of the complainant and for that there is no scope to prove the complainant’s case that the alleged amount was withdrawn by some other persons on two days from two different ATM koisk.
Rather, from the document as to bank statement adduced by the OP-Bank it is clear that the complainant has withdrawn money through ATM immediate before and after and after the alleged incident on more than one occasion.
Considering the above discussions as a whole, we can safely conclude that the complainant has hopelessly failed to prove this case and as such he is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly, the complainant case be dismissed.
Hence ,
ORDERED
that the complaint case being No.CC/102/2016 be and the same is dismissed on merit with no order as to cost against the Opposite party.
The OP in exonerated from his liability of paying any compensation to this complaint.
No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.
