Haryana

Ambala

CC/27/2019

Kashatriya Khukrain Sabha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank Of Inida - Opp.Party(s)

Manu Rastogi

05 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.        : 27 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   28.01.2019.

                                                          Date of decision               :  05.02.2021.

Kashatriya Khukrain Sabha (Regd.) Ambala Cantt. through Shri Twinderjit Singh Sawhney its Secretary, C/o Kwality Sweets, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.                                                                               ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

Union Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt.

           ..…..Opposite Party.         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                                     

Present:       Shri Rohit Mittal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Rajan Chawla, Advocate, counsel for OP.    

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To credit the amount of Rs.4,08,591/- in the account of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the date of actual payment by the OP.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by her.
3. To pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.                          

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sabha is a social organisation having property known as Khukrain Bhawan at Ambala Cantt. It is having Saving Bank Account bearing account No.30912011025779 with the OP Bank. The passbook issued on 16.11.2017, containing entries from 24.10.2016. On 29.08.2018, the said bank was having a credit balance of Rs.9,28,159.39. The Secretary of the said Sabha used to get updated the passbook regularly from the OP bank. On 29.08.2018, he went to the OP Bank for issuance of FDR from the said account, official of the OP informed that there is balance of Rs.5,19,568.39, in the said account. He inquired from the said official of the OP, as to why there is a difference in the balance shown in the passbook and in the computer system. On 05.09.2018, the OP bank issued account statement containing entries from 1.4.2011, onwards. The balance shown in the account statement does not tally with the balance shown in the passbook from a long time. In the latest passbook issued by the OP Bank on 24.10.2016, the credit balance brought forward was shown as Rs.16,52,125.60, whereas in the account statement of the same date the credit balance brought forward was of Rs.12,43,534.60, as such there is difference of balance of amount of Rs.4,08,591/-. The credit balance shown in statement of account and the passbook, which got updated from time to time, does not tally with each other and there is difference of about Rs.4,08,591/- or so continuing against each entry. There is huge difference in the balance shown in the passbook and statement of account and the OP is bound to satisfy the complainant as to why and how there was a difference. It appears to the complainant that some fraudulent debit entries have been made in the said account and that is why there is mismatch between the entries made in the passbook and the computerized statement of account. Some fraud has been played with the complainant and the account of the complainant has been tempered by making bogus entries. The complainant is entitled to withdraw the amount as shown in the passbook, but OP did not allow to do so. The Secretary of the Sabha, has contacted the OP to resolve the matter, but it failed to explain about difference of amount of Rs. 4,08,591/- between the passbook and the statement of account as on 28.09.2018 and it is bound to credit the said amount in the account of the complainant. By not doing so the OP has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder. On merits, it is stated that the complainant Sabha is having account No.309102010025779, with the OP Bank. It is a reputed leading Nationalised Bank of the country and is managing properly the account of the complainant, as per the Bankers Book of Evidence Act and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The technical mistake or the mis-command to the computer system, do create such type of discrepancies and as a result whereof there is difference of balance shown in the passbook and the actual accounts maintained by the bank in due course of law. Complainant cannot claim undue benefit due to the technical mistake. The complainant is a valuable customer of the bank and it is always ready to satisfy the complainant, and to do the best. The complainant is a Sabha/society and it must have been maintaining its own complete accounts and can tally the transactions made by it, with the passbook or the statement of account. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint alongwith heavy costs.

3.                Complainant tendered affidavit of shri Twinderjit Singh Sawhney, Secretary of Kashatriya Khukrain (Regd.), Ambala Cantt. as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP tendered affidavit of Kamal Raj Sada, Branch Manager as Annexure OPA alongwith the document Annexure OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that in the passbook issued by the OP for the saving account in question, on 29.08.2018, there was balance of Rs.9,28,159.39, whereas in the statement of account on the said date there was balance of Rs.5,19,568.39. In the passbook, on  24.10.2016, credit balance brought forward was of Rs.16,52,125.60, whereas on the same date, in the account statement credit balance was shown as Rs.12,43,534.60 only, as such there was difference of balance of Rs.4,08,591/-. Complainant requested the OP to look into the matter, but it failed to give any plausible reason as to why the amount shown in the passbook do not tally with the amount shown in the statement of account, thus the OP is bound to credit the said amount in the account of the complainant. By not doing so, it has committed deficiency in service.

                   On the contrary, the Ld. counsel for the OP contended that the discrepancy happened due to technical mistake and the authorized person of the complainant has duly checked and verified the accounts maintained by the bank as per Banker’s Book of Act. The statement of account was issued to the complainant as per law and guidelines of RBI. The complainant has alleged that fraud has been committed and in the cases pertaining to fraud are not maintainable before the Consumer Courts, therefore this complaint deserves dismissal not only on the ground of maintainability, but on merits also.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant is having saving account with the OP. From perusal of passbook and statement of account, it is apparent that the balance amount shown in the passbook do not tally with the amount shown in the statement of account. It is alleged that some fraudulent debit entries have been made from the account of the complainant. It is of a common practice that institutions like complainant, do maintain record with regard to credit/debit of the amount in their respective accounts, maintained by them. However, no such record has been produced by the complainant to show that as to which of the debit entry is bogus. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, we do not hesitate to conclude that complainant failed to prove its case.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 05.02.2021.

 

      Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                           Sd/-

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

          Member                                   Member                          President.

                                                                                        DCDRC, Ambala