It appears that the complainant is an account holder bearing A/C no.11168759318 of State Bank of India, Mangaldeep Branch, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri. On 14.07.2012, the complainant went to the SBI, Mangaldeep Branch, Siliguri to withdraw some money, and after updating his Pass Book, he noticed that Rs.5,210/- was withdrawn from his account by someone from 04.07.2012 to 13.07.2012 and in certain cases the drawals were made several times in a day. On 16.07.2012 the complainant submitted an application to the Manager, SBI, Hill Cart Road Branch, requesting him to enquire into the matter, and for taking necessary steps, and the same was received by the OP on 17.07.2012.
The Manager verbally advised the complainant to lodge an FIR at the Siliguri Police Station. The complainant lodged an FIR on 17.07.2012 with request to inspect the matter, but till date no response was received by the complainant from the Siliguri P.S.
Being aggrieved the complainant filed this case praying that the OP be directed to refund the said amount of Rs.5,210/- as found shortage in his account during updating on 14.07.2012, to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, and cost of litigation as deemed proper.
Contd….P/2
-:2:-
The OP is contesting the case and by filing written version dated 01.11.2012 against the petition of the complainant. The OP stressed that the case is not maintainable in law as well as on facts. The facts in the said petition are made on imaginary basis, and on perusing the statement of account of the complainant, being A/C No.11168759318, it reveals that the complainant on and from 04.07.2012 to 17.07.2012 has drawn a total sum of Rs.8,666/- by using ATM card and most of the withdrawn amount was debited in his account by swiping the debit card at P.O.S. (Point of Sale) for purchasing items. The complainant was aware regarding the aforesaid withdrawal of money from his savings bank account being no.11168759318 at the OP No.1 branch by using his ATM card for the period from 04.07.2012 to 13.07.2012, but despite the aforesaid knowledge the complainant filed this petition of complaint by lodging false allegation against the OP for making wrongful gain by causing wrongful loss to the OP by suppressing the actual facts of withdrawal of the aforesaid money. Further the compensation claimed by the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment is luxurious and he is not entitled to any claim including the amount which have already been debited in the account of the complainant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant should be dismissed with exemplary cost for unnecessary harassment caused to the OPs as the OPs have no deficiency in service on their parts.
Based on the respective submissions of the parties, the following issues are framed:-
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Is the complainant a consumer under the provisions of The C.P. Act, 1986 ?
- Was there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?
- Is the complainant entitled to the award prayed for ?
- To what other relief, if any, is the complainant entitled ?
Issue nos.1 & 2
Clearly the complainant is a resident of Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri town, and on the other hand the OP i.e., the SBI runs its branch at Hill Cart Road, Siliguri. The complainant claims an amount of Rs.5,210/- stated to be shortage in his bank account of the said bank branch.
Hence, evidently the case is well within the territorial and the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, and the complainant is assuredly a consumer as per provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Contd….P/3
-:3-
Hence, both the issues are answered in the affirmative, and as such the case is maintainable in this Forum, and the complainant is a consumer.
Issue Nos. 3, 4 & 5
These three issues being closely interlinked, are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience & brevity.
It is observed that the complainant himself as stated by its sub-para 3 of his complaint holding inter-alia that “someone has been withdrawn money against my aforesaid account Nos. from 04.07.2012 to 13.07.2012 in several times in a day, total amount is Rs.5,210/- shortage in my said account”.
From this statement and his bank account it appears that the money has been withdrawn several times in a day. As per instance on 11.07.2012, Rs.423/-, Rs.623/-, Rs.660/- and Rs.660/- were withdrawn successively. Hence, on that day it is evident from the bank instruments that there were several transactions in a day on 11.07.2012. Similarly there were also several transactions in a day on 13.07.2012 with the bank instruments with the aforesaid bank. It is also observed that all the transactions as appeared to be debited from his account are related to IRCTC . Further, the complainant has stated in his complaint that a sum of Rs.5,210/- was found shortage on the statement of account of his pass book. But the OP has categorically shown by counter checking the pass book that during the said period a total sum of Rs.8,666/- was debited/withdrawn from his aforesaid account during the period from 04.07.2012 to 13.07.2012. Hence, on actual observation it clearly transpires that the actual amount of shortage is more than Rs.5,210/- which is the amount claimed by the complainant during the said period.
The complainant could not give strong ground to confirm his claim that he has detected a shortage amounting to Rs. 5,210/- as it appears from the examination of his pass book. Hence, there is discrepancy in his statement as to what amount of money has been found shortage in his pass book.
Further, a peculiar phenomenon has also been observed that there are several transactions of money during the period from 04.07.2012 to 13.07.2012, particularly in a day on 11.07.2012, and also in a day on 13.07.2012. It is also a matter of controversy that the complainant was not at all conversant with such transaction even despite several transactions were made in a day regarding his savings bank pass book account as dealt with the said bank until he came to learn the same after updating his pass book on 14.07.2012. That he has no knowledge about such withdrawal of money from the said account from the bank even though the same was made in several times, has made a confusion towards the reality of the fact he has elaborated during argument.
Contd….P/4
-:4:-
It is also to be noticed and should be taken into consideration that the complainant has filed a copy of statement of his bank account along with complaint, and on scrutiny of the said statement of account it reveals that all the transactions during the said period was POS (Point of Sale) ….. IRCTC implies that the withdrawal on and from 04.07.2012 to 13.07.2012 has been reflected as a total sum of money exceeding Rs.5,210/- which is contrary to his claim that a total sum of Rs.5,210/- has been withdrawn by someone from his said account being No. 11168759318 by using ATM card, and most of the withdrawal was debited in his account by swiping at POS (Point of Sale) … IRCTC for purchasing items.
The complainant in his questionnaire put one question to the OP whether the OP submits CCTV footage of the concerned ATM counter during the period from 04.07.12 to 13.07.12. But the complainant did not ever mention any question regarding withdrawal of the said shortage of money by using his ATM card from any ATM machine in the petition submitted by him. Further, the money during the said period were debited on account of POS (Point of Sale) …. IRCTC. Hence, it is also the concern of the complainant at least to elicite information regarding the location where the said ATM card of the complainant was used after purchasing items. But he did not give any clear indication regarding the using of ATM card with the ATM machine. More over the money were directly debited in the fashion POS (Point of Sale) …. IRCTC.
Hence there is inconsistency in the statement of the complainant with regard to using his ATM card with ATM machine.
The complainant has failed to establish and confirm his claim due to lack of proper reason in favour of his complaint.
Further the deficiency of service on the part of the OP cannot be ascertained due to lack of sufficient evidence. As such Issue No.3 is disposed of accordingly, and Issues nos.4 & 5 are also disposed of.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.90/S/2012 be, and the same is, hereby dismissed on contest, but without cost.
A copy of the judgment be given to the parties free of cost.
