This case has arisen out of application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that the complainant in September, 2021 went to deposit Rs.7,900/- through CDM at Siliguri More, Raiganj, where security person told him that receipts are not generating from said machine however deposits can be made, so he deposited the same but surprisingly said amount was not reflecting in the statement of account of his sister and her husband.
That when he visited the respondent’s branch, the respondent concerned intimated that no money has been deposited in his account on that day, however when he demanded CCTV footages but the respondent concerned denied the same. He contacted respondent’s department on multiple times but it without resolving the issue intentionally dodging the liability and denied to co-operate. The respondent concern intentionally delaying as a consequence he has suffered severe & grave loss and harassment as he has got “no support” from the respondent’s side. There was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Thus the complainant prays for refund of Rs.7,900/- already paid to the respondent, compensation of Rs.1,000/- & cost of litigation.
O.P contested the case by filing W.V stating that there is more than one CDM under the control of O.P. The complainant did not say specific location & number of CDM at Sudarshanpur and he did not mention the exact date of incident, only he disclosed the month September, 2021. There was no deficiency or non co-operation on the part of the O.P concerned. The complainant is trying to establish a cook and bull story to get illegal benefit from O.P. The complainant got return Rs.7,900/- which he could not send/deposit so he is not entitled to get refund thereof as well other reliefs and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration
- Whether there was/ is any negligent act or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/Bank which gives rise cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s
According to the complainant he went to deposit Rs.7,900/- through the CDM of O.P at Sudarshanpur, Raiganj in the month of September, 2021. He did not mention/disclose concerned CDM No & relevant date of such transaction.
From evidence of O.P.W.1/Sri Raman Thakur, Deputy Manager of S.B.I, Karnojora Branch, it is evident that the complainant went before CDM (Cash Deposit/Dispensing Machine) vide No:622 on 25.09.2021 situated at Sudarshanpur near Traffic post, Siliguri More, Raiganj at about 7:00 PM & he several times tried to send money i.e Rs.7,900/- to the beneficiary, namely, Kaushik Banik & Tatini Banik, (sister’s husband & sister) of the complainant having A/c No:20012838008 with S.B.I, Naihati Branch, North 24 Parganas, but could not succeed and at 19:08:46 Hrs i.e 07:08:46 PM he himself pressed cancel Key & cancelled the transaction vide No:5055 & Rs.7,900/- was refunded to the complainant, denomination:Two notes of Rs.100/-, Three notes of Rs.500/- and 31 notes of Rs.200/- and message was sent to his registered mobile number 7439094771 & CDM counted the refund amount i.e Rs.7,900/-, at 19:09:01 shutter opened, at 19:09:04 cash returned & at 19:09:04 cash removal detected, at 19:09:14 shutter closed, supported by EJ Log (Electronic Journal Log) of said CDM & no excess cash was found on that date i.e 25.09.2021 in respect of the said transaction.
Statement of A/c No:20012838008 of Kaushik Banik & Tatini Banik (Produced by respondent) did not show credit of Rs.7,900/- allegedly sent by complainant, only shows interest credit Rs.925.00 on 25.09.2021.
Respondent produced print out of EJ Log of CDM No:622, on dated 25.09.2021 which corroborates evidence of P.W.1 discussed herein above.
Document produced by respondent show that in that respect a certificate was issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, Karnojora Branch on dated 27.04.2023.
Further it is evident that complainant filed an application (produced by respondent) along with another application for Cash Deposited in CDM But Account Not Credited before O.P/bank on 28.09.2021 praying for refund of Rs.7,900/- & the respondent concerned initiated the matter and on 10.10.2021 Bank Officer attended said CDM machine and Rs.15,000/- excess cash was found against another transaction which was credited to the concerned customer account on 16.10.2021 as per EJ Log, also certified by Chief Manager, SBI, Karnojora Branch in same letter on dated 27.04.2023.
O.P.W.1 in cross-examination admits that complainant requested the respondent/bank to provide CCTV footage of said CDM & CCTV footage of said CDM was shown to the complainant as per his request. Then says none applied to the bank to store the CCTV footage and said CCTV footage was auto deleted from the system after lapse of 90 days from the incident.
Therefore, the allegation of the complainant as to delay in response and/or providing “No support” from the side of respondents do not stand.
Ld. Advocate of the respondents argued that complainant tried to send money putting damaged notes in CDM perhaps, as a result CDM did not accept it, so complainant could not succeed. In W.V case of putting damaged notes in CDM is not made out, so such argument held assumption/presumption.
Under above facts and discussion, we find no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of O.P/Bank and as the complainant got return Rs.7,900/- which he could not send/deposit the complainant is not entitled to get refund thereof & any other relief as prayed for and the case is being concocted one, liable to be dismissed.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-46/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
