West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/91/2017

Manoj Kumar Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Tapas Adhya

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.91/2017

 

             Manoj Kumar Agarwal, S/o Gobindaram Agarwal, of Kharida Main Road, P.O. Kharagpur,

             P.S. Kharagpur (Town), District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

The Manager, Canara Bank, Kharagpur Malancha Road Branch, Malancha Road ( near Hanuman Mandir), P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur (Town),  District- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721305.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Subrata Das, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Subal Chakraborty, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 15 /12/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal against the above named O.P, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

                 Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

The complainant is a bonafide consumer of the O.P.-Bank having his SB A/C no.0190101012399 lying with the O.P.-Bank.  On 10/11/2016, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- in his said S.B A/C in the O.P.-Bank after filling up the pay-in- slip.  Although he deposited Rs.1,36,000/- in his A/C, but due to mistake he wrongly noted the denomination of notes in the deposit slip as Rs.500 x 125= Rs.1,25,000/- but in the grand

 

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

total, the complainant rightly wrote the deposit amount as Rs.1,36,000/-.  Sometimes thereafter, the complainant updated his pass book of the said A/C and noticed that the O.P.-Bank has credited only Rs.86,000/- instead of Rs.1,36,000/-.   It is stated that at the time of deposit, the concerned staff of the bank revived Rs.1,36,000/- and after being satisfied,  he returned the counter part of the deposit slip to the complainant.  Thereafter on 3/12/2016, the complainant submitted a written complaint before the O.P.-Bank but they neither gave any reply nor did they pay any heed to such request.  Complainant also submitted a written complaint before the Bank’s Ombudsman on 4/01/2017 but of no good.  On 10/04/2017, the complainant made an application under R.T.I. Act before the O.P.-bank with a request to supply the banker’s part of the deposit slip but they did not supply.  Hence this complaint, alleging deficiency in service and praying for directing the O.P.-bank to credit Rs.50,000/- with interest @Rs.12% p.a. in the A/C of the complainant, to pay Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

                  O.P.-Bank has contested this case by filling a joint written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-bank that the complainant deposited Rs.86,000/- only in his said A/C but in deposit slip he wrongly wrote the denomination of notes.  On that very day, the staff of the bank informed the complainant that he wrongly mentioned the denomination of the notes in his deposit slip and he wrongly mentioned total amount as Rs.1,36,000/- instead of Rs.86,000/-.  The O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the case with cost.

             To prove his case, the complainant Manoj Kumar Agarwal has examined himself as PW-1 and the documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked exhibit 1 to 6 respectively.  On the other hand, O.P.-Bank has examined it’s branch manager Mr. Ravi Kumar as OPW-1 and the document, relied upon by the O.P, has been marked as exbt. A.  

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer of the O.P.-bank?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                    

Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

Maintainability of this case has not been questioned at the time of final hearing of

 

Contd…………………..P/3

 

( 3 )

this case.  We also do not find anything adverse regarding maintainability of this case and this point is therefore decided in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.                        

                  

            Point no. 2:

    It is not denied and disputed that the complainant has his SB A/C being no.

            0190101012399 in the O.P.-Bank and therefore he is definitely a Consumer of the O.P.-

            Bank.  This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

            Point no. 3:

              Regarding deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Bank, it is the specific case of the complainant that although he deposited Rs.1,36,000/- in his said A/C of the O.P.-bank on 10/11/2016 by filling up a pay-in-slip but subsequently when he updated his pass book of the said A/C, he noticed that only a sum of Rs.86,000/-has been credited in his said account instead of Rs.1,36,000/-.  In support of his said case, the complainant has filed a written examination –in-chief supported by affidavit apart from producing the counter part of the pay-in-slip dated10/11/2016 (exbt.-1) and the concerned xerox page (Exbt-3) of pass book of his said SB A/C.  From exbt.1, we find that in the said counter part of the pay-in-slip it has been clearly mentioned in words as well as in figure regarding deposit of Rs.1,36,000/- in his said A/C, although number of denomination has been wrongly written as Rs.1000x11 and Rs.500x125.  Said number of denomination if calculated comes to Rs.73,500/- and not Rs.86,000/- as stated by the O.P.-bank.  It thus appears that the number of denomination as mentioned in the counter part of the pay-in-slip was not properly mentioned but those were written through inadvertence.  We further find that in the counter part of the pay-in-slip (Exbt. 1) amount of deposit has been clearly mentioned both in words and figures as Rs.1,36,000/-.  It is natural that after verifying the deposit amount as mentioned in the pay-in-slip in words and figures, the concerned clerk of the O.P.-Bank returned the counterpart (Exbt.1) to the complainant.  To our utter surprise, we find from Exbt. 3 that a sum of Rs.86,000/- only instead of Rs.1,36,000/- was credited in the said A/C of the complainant on that very day.  On behalf of the O.P, banker’s part (Exbt.A) of the said pay-in-slip has been filed and admitted in evidence as Exbt.A.  From that Exbt.A also we find that the total amount of deposit of Rs.1,36,000/- has been clearly mentioned therein both in words and figures although the denomination of notes thereof has not been correctly written.  Since, the amount of deposit has been clearly mentioned in words and figures, so wrong mentioning of

denomination does not matter at all.  From this Exbt.A, we find that there is some notes in different ink thereon but since there is no such notes on the counterpart (exbt.1) of the pay-in-slip, so such notes on exbt.A should not be believed as it was lying in the custody of the

 

Contd…………………..P/4

 

( 4 )

O.P.-bank.  The only conclusion should be therefore that when the counterpart (Exbt.1) clearly mentioned the amount of deposit both in words and figures, so it should be presumed that after being satisfied with the amount of deposit, the said counterpart (Exbt.1) was returned to the complainant.

              In the above facts and circumstances and the discussions, made above, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant actually deposited Rs.1,36,000/- in his said SB A/C on that very day, but the O.P.-Bank very dishonestly credited a sum of Rs.86,000/- only instead of Rs.1,36,000/- in the SB A/C of the complainant which amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-bank. 

  This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

Point no. 4:

              In view of our above findings, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for. Regarding amount of compensation and litigation cost, we are of the view that if an order of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- is allowed, would meet the ends of justice.

                    All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                     In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

 

                                                           Hence, it is,

                                                             Ordered,

                                                              that the complaint case no.91/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P.-bank.  O.P.-bank is directed to credit the balance amount of deposit of Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. with effect from 10/11/2016 till deposit of the same.  O.P.-bank is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  All such payments shall be made within a month from this date of order.

O.P.-bank is however is at liberty to realize the said awarded amount from the concerned clerk, for whose fault such deficiency in service has been caused and to take legal departmental action if any against him.

                         Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                    

                            President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur