Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.
This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Ashis Kr. Paul.
The case of the complainant’s in short is that he is the customer of opposite party bank having a joint account being No.06030100004785 with his wife. The complainant’s further case is that he purchased a vehicle by finance from TVS financer scheme and for which Rs.1,605/- was/is deducted by the opposite party bank on 7th day of every English months from the above mentioned account.
The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- on 1.2.2016 in his account by depositing slip and the opposite party endorsed the same by issuing counterpart. The complainant followed that one ECS rejection charges of Rs.76/- is deducted from his account on 9.2.2016 although he has deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- on 1.2.2016. The complainant did not understand why opposite party deducted Rs.76/-. Thereafter on 15.3.2016 the complainant went to the opposite party bank and asked the opposite party bank about the deduction. But opposite party without giving reply, threatened the complainant with filthy language. The complainant became astonished and insulted with the act of the opposite party bank. This is a negligence as well as deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank.
The complainant sent notice to opposite party bank through his advocate. Opposite party bank sent reply of the notice with false contents to save their skin and no solution came up for and for this reason this complainant compelled to file this case before this Ld. Forum for relief with a prayer to direct the opposite party bank to rectify the mistake which is done by the opposite party on 9.2.2016 by dishonoring the cheque of the complainant in favour of TVS company although the complainant deposited excess money on 1.2.2016 and also prayed direction to pay compensation for Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant.
The opposite party bank contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that complainant has a Savings Bank account with the opposite party bank, Jirat Branch and his account number is 06030100004785. He has given ECS mandate of Rs.1,605/- from his savings bank account for deduction in every month. On 1.2.2016 the complainant deposited Rs.2000/- in his savings account through deposit slip. But in his deposit slip he has written account No.9785 instead of 0603010004785. The name of the account holder was not legible. The account number belongs to other customer. The complainant has not mentioned any contact number in his deposit slip. Due to such reason the account was not traceable and the name and account number differed and the amount was kept in the sundry creditor as per banking norms.
This opposite party bank further stated that later the complainant came to the bank on 15.2.2016 and informed that he has deposited Rs.2000/- in his savings account on 1.2.2016 and mentioned a wrong account number. After verification the amount of Rs.2000/- was credited to complainant’s account bearing No.06030100004785 on 15.2.2016. At that time the complainant was satisfied and gracefully accepted his mistake.
In the mean time due to ECS rejection on February, 2016 within 10th of every month a charge of Rs.76/- was deducted by the system as ECS return as there was insufficient balance in the said account. On 15.3.2016 the complainant again came to the opposite party bank and asked to revert his debited entry of Rs.76/- dated 9.2.2016. The bank official informed the complainant as the mistake was done on the part of the customer and the same was not informed about the wrong entry of his account number while depositing Rs.2000/- on 1.2.2016 before 9.2.2016 and as it was informed on 15.2.2016 by the complainant; it cannot be reversed as it was a system deduction. The complainant got annoyed and told that if it is not reverted he will initiate action against the opposite party. The bank cannot reverse the amount deducted by the system as it was a wrongful mistake done by the complainant himself and it was informed about the mistake by the complainant regarding the wrong mentioning of the account number after due time of ECS in the month of February, 2016. There is no deficiency in service by the bank on and from 1.2.2016 to 9.2.2016. Hence, this case.
Both the complainant and the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and also filed a few documents in xerox copies. The complainant filed the xerox copy of customer part of the savings voucher, copy of notice served to the opposite party and pass book. The opposite party filed bank copy of savings voucher dated 1.2.2016 marked as Annexure –A, copy of savings bank details of the complainant dated 12.4.2017 marked as Annexure –B in 3 pages, copy of reply dated 21.3.2016.
After perusing the complainant petition, documents in the case record and written version filed by the opposite party and the evidence on affidavit of the complainant & the opposite party and from the written notes of argument it is clear that the complainant being a customer of the opposite party bank deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- through savings voucher on 01.02.2016 in his account number out of which a sum of Rs.1605/- deducted through ECS mandate within 7th day of each month. After a few days the complainant noticed that a sum of Rs.76/- has been deducted from his account as ECS rejection charge on 09.02.2016. When the complainant went to the opposite party on 15.03.2016 and enquired such deduction then the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant and used filthy languages as a result the complainant felt insulted and filed the complaint petition before this Forum praying directions upon the opposite party. The opposite party in his version as well as evidence on affidavit averred that the complainant wrote wrong account number 9785 instead of 4785 and the name of the complainant was not readable and there was no phone no in the deposit slip so the opposite party could not enter the said amount in any account as it was mismatched with the name and account number and lastly kept the said amount in the sundry creditor. The complainant met the opposite party on 15.2.2016 and stated that he has deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- but not credited in his account then on verification the opposite party credited the said amount in the account of the complainant. The dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant demanded the refund of Rs.76/- from the opposite party. After perusing the office copy of deposit voucher it is clear that the digit 4 out of four digits written in the specified portion is not clear and the name of the customer written in two places are not prominent as a result there is every possibility of being mistake on the part of bank officials. The bank official has no animus relationship with the complainant. Why he will cause harm to its bonafide customer so he deposited the said amount in the sundry creditor. And after getting complaint from this consumer opposite party credited the said amount on 15.2.2016 in the account of the complainant, noted as cash dated 01.02.2016 which is crystal clear from the print out of the pass book. As such the opposite party bank showed good gesture upon the complainant. So from the above discussion we may come into this conclusion that there is no willful negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.76/- that deducted as ECS charge for not writing the account number properly & the name of the account holder and depositor prominently in the deposit sleep so the bank employee could not credit in the account of the complainant. If the complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of the bank then the liability of the bank will arise. As such the complaint petition is bereft of merit and liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Hence it is ordered that the complainant case being No.62 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
