Complainant Sukhdev Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in his account against proper entry in the Bank Passbook and the opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses for the mental and financial harassment to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is account holder of opposite party Bank bearing account no.00641000011469. He is agriculturist by profession. Thus he is consumer of the opposite party. He is agriculturist and his son is living in Abroad for his livelihood. He used to deposit money in his saving account whenever he received money from commission Agent i.e. M/s.Handa Rice Mills in Sachaninia, after selling grain in the market or when he receive the money from his son. He has withdrawn the money according to his needs. Date wise entries are made in the Bank Passbook issued by the opposite party to him. He has further pleaded that on 15.5.2015, he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in morning time by cash. The entry is made in the bank passbook issued by the opposite party and balance shown was Rs.5,52,465,70/- and again he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- after lunch on the same day in the Bank of opposite party and balance lifted up from Rs.5,52,465.70 to Rs.6,52,465.70/-. The entry in this regard is also made in the Bank Passbook. He received rs.1,00,000/- from Commission Agent M/s.Handa Rice Mill and Commission Agent Grain Market Sachania and Rs.1,00,000/- from his son who is living at Abroad. After 15.5.2015, he deposited Rs.1,40,000/- and the balance shown as Rs.7,92,165.70/- and then again deposited Rs.12,713/- and balance lifted from Rs.7,92,165.70/- to Rs.8,05,118.70/-. After that he had withdrawn and deposited the money in the opposite party Bank. After five months, the opposite party deducted Rs.1,00,000/- from his account without informing or his consent. Moreover, no entry in this respect has been shown in his passbook. The opposite party had illegally deducted Rs.1,00,000/- from his account and caused loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. He requested the Bank to either give the satisfactory reason about the deduction or refund the same in his account and make correct entry in the passbook, but all the requests made by him to the officials of the opposite party Bank were dashed to ground. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party for filing the present complaint; the complainant has filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story and dragged the opposite party in false litigation, as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- only and not deposited again Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day as alleged by him. The receipt for depositing Rs.1,00,000/- was duly issued by the bank to the complainant. Entry to this effect has also been made in the account of the complainant, as well as in the Register of the bank. Neither any other amount was deposited by the complainant on the same day, nor any other receipt regarding deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day was issued by the bank to the complainant. This fact is crystal clear from the statement of account of the complainant Sukhdev Singh and Register of the bank, and from the vouchers. Serial number of the voucher of complainant is 9, which is also entered on the Register and the bank is also in possession of all vouchers i.e. prior to the serial No.9 and after serial number 9. The serial numbers are in continuing and there is no break in the same. The entry on the pass book regarding deposit of another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day was made due to error in pass book Printer. All entries made in a day in the computer cannot be changed or altered on completion of the work of whole day i.e. day end. The complainant has set up a false story and intends to take advantages of wrong entry made in his pass book on account of error in printer of Pass Book.All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith copy of passbook of bank Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Chand Branch Manager Ex.OP-W1/A alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of facts, as placed before us. We find that the present complaint has prompted as a result of deletion (in October’2015) of one of the twin entries (both of 15.05.2015) for Rs.1,00,000/- by the OP Bank from the complainant’s Savings Bank Pass Book (A/c # 00641000011469). The complainant claims that the twin credit entries of 15.05.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- each were correctly printed out (in his Pass Book) in the right order as he had deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (in cash) twice in his above SB a/c on 15.05.2015; whereas, the OP Bank has claimed that the second credit entry of 15.05.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- was wrongly printed out by the Branch Pass Book Printer on account of its malfunctioning. The complainant has produced his SB A/c Pass Book (Ex.C2) evidencing entry of Rs.1,00,000/- printed twice on 15.05.2015 and rectified in October’ 2015 only i.e., after a period of full ‘5’ months. Although, the complainant has stated in his affidavit Ex.C1 that he has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- twice in his account; having received Rs. 1,00,000/- from the commission agent Handa Rice Mills (being sale proceeds of his farm produce) and the other Rs.1,00,000/- was remitted to him by his (abroad settled) son. However, the complainant has failed to produce any reliably cogent evidence to support the alleged cash ‘receipts’ of Rs.2.0 Lac and also the cash ‘deposits’ of Rs.2.0 Lac with the Bank on 15.05.2015 and in its absence the claim is left-out to be based upon ‘bald’ statements, only. On the other hand, the opposite party Bank has produced the SB A/c Statement Ex.OP1; Branch’ cash scroll statement Ex.OP2 & related vouchers Ex.OP3 to OP9 of 15.05.2015 that duly prove that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.1.0 Lac only (through the scroll # 09) on 15.05.2015, only once and not twice as alleged/claimed by him; and the twin credit entries of 15.05.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- each in the SB Pass Book has been indeed a mal-function of the OP Bank’s Pass Book Printer. At the same time, it also proves negligence on the part of the OP Bank that its Pass Book Printer continued to ‘mal-function’ for such a long period with no check or timely ‘suo-moto’ information to the affected customers. Even, no ‘letters of regret’ for causing inconvenience to the affected consumer/customers have been produced on records. However, we are not inclined to award any ‘compensation’ etc to the complainant since he has not come to seek ‘equity’ with clean hands.
7. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is devoid of all statutory merit under the adjudicatory Act and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its costs.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
February, 11 2016 Member
*MK*
