By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant being the amount appropriated by Opposite party from the account of the Complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief :- The Complainant is a customer of Opposite party Bank. The Account No is 31713679683. The Complainant approached the Opposite party to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the account of the Complainant and to transfer an amount of Rs.25,000/- to Account No.30105737102. The bank officials advised her to fill two debit slips first. Accordingly, the Complainant filled 2 Debit slips for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each and given to the officials. The clerk of the Bank asked the complaint to fill only one slip for a sum of Rs.50,000/- instead two slips and that will be enough. Accordingly the Complainant filled another debit slip for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and given to the clerk. The cashier took one bundle of Rs.500/- and deducting Rs.25,000/- the balance Rs.25,000/- is given to the Complainant. The Complainant received Rs.25,000/- from the cashier and asked him to enter it to the account of the Complainant. The cashier then informed the Complainant that he is busy and asked the Complainant to come over there on another day for entering the transaction in the pass book. Again on 31.07.2015, the Complainant withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from the account. The Complainant then got entered the earlier transaction in the Pass book. On perusal the Complainant found that there is a shortage of Rs.25,000/- in the account. The Complainant then raised complaint. The bank officials after making enquiry, told the Complainant that on 11.07.2013 the Complainant had withdrawn Rs.50,000/- from the bank and another 25,000/- was transferred to the amount as requested by Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that on 11.07.2013 the Complainant received only Rs.25,000/-. The cashier took a bundle of Rs.500/- and after deducting Rs.25,000/- balance Rs.25,000/- is given to the Complainant. The Opposite party shown a debit slip of Rs.25,000/-. Actually the Complainant replaced the earlier debit slips of Rs.25,000/- and produced a debit slip for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite party. The Complainant on perusal of CTV in the bank, it is found that the bundle given to the Complainant is a very small one. The complainant requested the bank officials to settle the matter, but not settled. Aggrieved by this the complaint has been filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice, was issued to Opposite party and Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version the Opposite party denied the averment in the complaint that the Complainant approached the Opposite party for withdrawing Rs.25,000/- from her account and transferring Rs.25,000/- form her account to the account No.30105737102 and the bank officials advised the Complainant to till two debit slip and amounting she filled 2 debit slips for Rs.25,000/- and the clerk of the Opposite party informed her that only one debit slip for Rs.50,000/- is enough and she again filed a slip for Rs.50,000/- and handed over to the clerk etc. The Opposite Party also claimed the amount that the clerk took one bundle of Rs.500/- and after deducting Rs.25,000/- the balance of Rs.25,000/- is given to the Complainant etc. The Opposite Party denied all other material allegations in the Complainant. The Opposite parties states that no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party and no mistake is happened from the side of Opposite Party. There is long delay in filing complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and other documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complaint in addition to Complainant, filed proof affidavit . The Complainant is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.X1. The Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and documents are marked as Exts.B1 to B5. Ext.X1 is the Pen drive produced by Opposite Party as per the order of the Forum to peruse the CC TV vision. Exts.B1, B2, B3 are debit slips filled up and given to Opposite party by the Complainant. Exts.B4 and B5 are the statement of account of the Complainant. The Complainant filed petition for a direction to Opposite Party not to delete the CC TV vision with respect to the particular transaction. The Forum allowed the petition and ordered the Opposite Party not to delete the CC TV Vision during the said period. Thereafter, the Complainant filed another application for a direction to Opposite Party to produce the CC TV Vision. The Opposite Party complied the order and produced Pen drive. The Forum perused the CC TV Vision in the presence of both the parties. Thereafter, the Forum saw the vision separately. The alleged transaction took place on 11.07.2013. In cross examination of OPW1, OPW1 admitted that the full day details of CC TV Vision is not produced before the Forum. Ext.X1 pen drive did not contain the full day details of vision. More over, OPW1 admitted that the cashier of the bank used two cash counters on that day for transaction. On seeing the CC TV vision, the bundle given to the Complainant by the cashier seems to be half of bundle and not full bundle. The Complainant have a specific grievance as alleged. There are somany problems and allegations arising day by day in bank transactions. So in order to find out the true picture and true facts banks are fixing CCTV inside the bank to solve these issues. So to find out the facts, a full day vision is necessary. Hence the Opposite Party bank failed to produce the full day details. The counting of notes and the cash dealing by the clerk are not visible in the CCTV vision produced by Opposite Party bank. Whether the Opposite Party had dealt with the particular transaction in a correct manner or not is not proved by Opposite Party Bank. More over the transaction carried out in the account of Complainant on 11.07.2013 is not entered in pass book on the particular day for which the Opposite party states the reason that the printer is not working. If the transaction is entered in pass book on the same day, the Complainant may get the knowledge of loss of money on the same day. The non entering of transaction in the pass book on the particular day of transaction is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party. So considering all these aspects, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party in dealing the matter. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) only as compensation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of December 2014.
Date of filing:10.10.2013
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Sulaika Salin Jan. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Rajan Manager, SBI, Chundale.
Exhibits for the complainant:
Nil.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
B1. Withdrawal Slip. dt:11.07.2013.
B2. Cash Transfer Slip. dt:11.09.2013.
B3. Debit Slip. dt:11.07.2013.
B4. Statement of Account. dt:11.11.2014.
B5. SMS Screen Shot.
X1. Pen drive.
