IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/146/2013 .
Date of Filing: 18.12.2013 Date of Final Order: 10.08.2015.
Complainant: Abdul Alim , S/O Late Sadeque Ali, Vill. Kapasdanga, P.O. Jarrabad ,
P.S. &Dist. Murshidabad. W.B 742149.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Berhampore East Road,
P.O. Berhampore, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin -742101.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lalbagh Branch,
P.O.&P.S. &Dist. Murshidabad, WB. Pin 742149.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya—Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of Rs.5, 400/- for deduction of the said amount without releasing the said amount though ATM.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant’s savings Bank A/C No. 31175956646 is with the OP –State Bank of India. On 5.3.2013 Rs.5, 400/- was deducted in his Savings A/C without getting the same at the time of withdrawal of said amount through ATM of UBI. In spite of several approaches for nine months with OP-Bank, no result. Then the complainant is compelled to file the complaint. Hence, the instant complaint.
The written version filed by the OP, in brief, is that on 5.03.13 the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.5400/- from ATM of UBI, Lalbagh Branch and the said amount has been released from the A/C by the said Bank. The complainant informed the same to the OP No.2 who lodged complaint on 19.3.13. Thereafter, OP No.2 got JP log originated by UBI and it appears that the s aid transaction was successful. The UBI, Lalbagh is a necessary party as the UP Log was originated by then. Depending upon the statement of the complainant, the OP No.2 also lodged further complaint before NFS on 12.6.13 and 11.7.13 but result is transaction was successful. Complainant has no sufficient document as proof in support of his case and for that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and for that the complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of the both parties the following points have been framed for disposal of the case.
Point Nos.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form or not?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this case.
- Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation or not?
- Whether the complainant is bard for defects of parties or not?
- Whether the complaint is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/relies the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The complainant has prayed for payment of Rs.5100/- plus compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant’s savings Bank A/C No. 31175956646 is with the OP –State Bank of India. On 5.3.2013 Rs.5, 400/- was deducted in his Savings A/C without getting the same at the time of withdrawal of said amount through ATM of UBI. In spite of several approaches for nine months with OP-Bank, no result.
On the other hand, the OP’s case in brief, is that the written version filed by the OP, in brief, is that on 5.03.13 the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.5400/- from ATM of UBI, Lalbagh Branch and the said amount has been released from the A/C by the said Bank. The complainant informed the same to the OP No.2 who lodged complaint on 19.3.13. Thereafter, OP No.2 got JP log originated by UBI and it appears that the s aid transaction was successful. The UBI, Lalbagh is a necessary party as the UP Log was originated by then. Depending upon the statement of the complainant, the OP No.2 also lodged further complaint before NFS on 12.6.13 and 11.7.13 but result is transaction was successful.
In this case the complainant has filed the relevant documents in support of his case.
But in this case the complainant has not filed any evidence –on-affidavit though date was fixed for adducing evidence –on-affidavit.
In this case at the end of proceedings of this case admittedly one document has come before this Forum which is statement of transaction of the pass-book of the complainant issued by OP-SBI.
From this statement it appears that Rs.5000/- has been credited in the savings A/C of the complainant with OP-SBI on 09.06.2015 out of the claim amount of Rs.5400/- for debiting the same though the said money was not withdrawn actually from the ATM of UBI on 5.3.2013.
In this case the complainant himself is pleading his case.
At this state the complaint is not claiming the remaining Rs.400/- .
During hearing argument he is giving more emphasis on her claim for compensation of Rs.5, 000/- and cost of Rs.5, 000/- for harassment.
In this regard the ld. lawyer for the OP-SBI has raised strong objection against his claim of compensation and cost totaling to Rs.10, 000/- on the ground that they have laches and this defect was done from the ATM of UBI who is not party in this case.
The problem of non-delivery of cash from ATM machine at the time of withdrawal from ATM centre was the ATM of UBI, not the ATM of SBI.
The question of adjustment of this amount in between two different banks by some technical process and for that it would take some time.
The complainant is admittedly the customer of OP-SBI and the said amount was admittedly debited in their savings a/c of the complaint by the OP-SBI though the said cash was not actually received by the complaint from the ATM, UBI at the time of withdrawal and for that the OP-SBI cannot avoid liability.
Now, the said amount has already paid by the OP-SBI by giving credit in the savings a/c of the complainant and the complaint has no claim for the said amount. His only claim now is for compensation and cost.
Considering the above facts and circumstances though there is no specific evidence from the side of the complainant as to particular laches on the part of the OP-SBI where transaction actually operated from ATM of UBI who is not a party and both the banks must be responsible for this delay in such final payment, we are of view that OP-SBI cannot ignore his liability as to payment of compensation and cost.
In this regard we are of view considering the amount involved and two banks being involved where UBI is not party that OP-SBI will pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost.
On the basis of the above discussions we find that all these points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and as such the complainant will get relief in part.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 146/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest in part.
The OP-SBI is directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
In default , the OP-SBI has to pay Rs.50/-as fine per day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
