ORDER

18-08-2015

This is a complaint case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of service against the respondents.

               The case of the complainant, in gist is that he is an account holder of the State Bank of India, Thoubal Branch bearing Account no. 30386683175. His monthly salary is entered into his said account by deposit and as such he has transaction to deposit and withdrawal of money regularly from his account balance of the said Bank until the last month of March of 2013. Meanwhile a sum of Rs. 44,000/- (Rupees forty four thousand) altogether had been deducted from his said account balance in the name of the respondent No. 2 & 3 during the last few months on different dates by the respondent No. 1 in collusion with his subordinate staffs of the Bank without giving any information to the complainant by cheating.

               The complainant filed a written report to the respondent No. 1 through his counsel for clearance of the mistake in his account. But the respondent No. 1 refused his proposal and did not give any chance of bringing up any amicable settlement between them and also did not take up any action against the persons involved in the matter. It is also averment of the complainant that the respondent No. 2 & 3 have taken K.C.C. loan from the respondent No. 1 Bank by using his forge signature as guarantor of the said loan. Hence the case.

           On the other hand in the written version submitted by the respondent No. 1, he avers that the respondent No. 2 and 3 availed K.C.C. loans from the respondent No. 1 Bank and the complainant stood as guarantor of the respondent No. 2 & 3 by giving two standing instructions dt. 16.01.2013 viz (1) “Kindly deduct a sum of Rs. 2000/-(rupees two thousand) only per month with effect from March, 2013 from my saving Bank Account No. 30386683175 and credit the same to the loan account No. 32836184944 till the loan amount is fully liquidated” and (2) “Kindly deduct a sum of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand)only per month with effect from March, 2013 from my saving bank account No. 30386683175 and credit the same to the loan account no. 32836184751 till the loan amount is fully liquidated”, Annexure-X-1 and Annexure-X-2 are the two standing instructions enclosed by the respondent No. 1 at the time of submitting his written version to the case. 

         Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 started deduction of the said amount from the month of March, 2013 from the saving Bank account of the complainant and credited the same to the loan accounts of the respondent No. 2 & 3. The respondent No. 1 further avers that thier deductions are known to the complainant as he used to withdraw money from his said account every month by ATM withdrawal and whenever withdrawals are made by ATM balance prints are issued by the machine itself as such there is no question of committing illegal acts against the complainant.

            The respondent No. 2 & 3 was duly served with the summon through Regd. Post and ordinary service but they have failed to appear before this Forum and thus the case was proceeded ex-parte against them.

             This Forum has framed the following point of determination.

             Whether there is/was deficiency on the part of the respondent No. 1 in rendering service?

Reasons and decisions thereof:

           Heard both the counsels at length perused the documents in support of their cases.

           The Ld. Counsel of the complainant has contended all the facts alleged in the complainant petition. The main contention of the Ld. Counsel of the complainant are that a sum of Rs. 44,000/-(Rupees forty four thousand) altogether had been deducted from the saving account balance of the complainant in the name of the respondent No. 2 and 3 during the last few months on different dates by the subordinate staffs of the said bank by collusion with the respondent No. 1 without knowing any reason and giving any information by using forge signature of the complainant. In support of his case, the complainant filed his Bank statement of Account as his document.

           On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel of respondent No. 1, has contended that the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 had availed K.C.C. loans from SBI, Thoubal Branch and the complainant stood as guarantor to the loans issued to the respondents No. 2 and respondent No. 3. Moreover, the complainant had given two standing instructions (ie. Annexure-X-1 and Annexure-X-2) to the respondent No. 1 on 16.01.2013 stating that “Kindly deduct a sum of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees two thousand) only each per month with effect from march 2013 from my saving account No.30386683175, and credit the same to the KCC loan accounts of the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 till the loan amount is fully liquidated”.As such the respondent No. 1 started to deduct the KCC loan amount of respondent No.2 & 3 from the account of the complainant and credit the same to the KCC loan account of the respondent No. 2 & 3.

           The Ld. Counsel further contended that all deductions are known to the complainant as he used to withdraw money from his account every month by way of ATM withdrawal, balance print are issued by the Machine itself and as such he knows the balance in his saving Bank Account. And as such respondent No. 1 had never cause any wrongful loss to the complainant and that there never arises any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No.1. In support of his case the respondent No. 1 filed five documents ie Annexure-X-1, Annexure-X-2, Annexure-X-3, Annexure-X-4 and Annexure-X-5.

             As regards the documents (i.e. Account Statement of the complainant) filed by the complainant and that of documents (i.e. Annexure-X-3) filed by the respondent No. 1, are the same and there is no dispute to be decided by this Forum in the respect. As regards the documents (Annexure-X-1 and Annexure-X-2) filed by the respondent No. 1, the Ld. Counsel of the complainant has contended that signatures of the complainant in the two standing instructions (Annexure-X-1 and Annexure-X-2)  are false and forge signatures but he does not file any replication to the written version of the respondent No.1. As the said two standing instructions (i.e. Annexure-X-1 and Annexure-X-2) are not contradicted by the complainant by filling his replication, there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No. 1.

            Regarding the question of forgery in respect of signature of the complainant in the said two standing instructions (i.e. Annexure- X-1 and Annexure- X-2), this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the same.

           In the result, we are of the opinion that this complaint filed by the complainant has no force and accordingly the same is dismissed.

           Hence the case is disposed of.

           Announce in the open court. 

Member                                            Member                                         President