:    J U D G M E N T    :

This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed on 17.02.15 against Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Bethuadahari Branch, Dist. Nadia.

The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:- 

The complainant, Sati Rani Sen of Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia has a savings bank account being No. 02190100116606 i.e., a pension account.  On 09.11.13 some unknown persons had withdrawn Rs. 2,000/- from the OP bank although the petitioner did not give signatures for withdrawal of the same amounts. 

The complainant made a protest in the bank, but to no effect.  Hence, she sent a letter to OP Bank through courier service which was received on 23.05.14.  The cause of action arose on 23.05.14.  She filed photocopy of the pass book, account statement, the receipt etc.   She prays for a direction to the OP to handover Rs. 2,000/- to her.  She also prays for compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

The opposite party bank has contested the case by filing a written version on 13.07.15.  The bank has challenged all the contentions of the petitioner.  The bank officer diligently verified the signature of the complainant after proper verification the money was paid. 

POINT FOR DECISION

1. Point No. 1:   Has the complainant proved the case?

REASOND DECISIONS

Perused the interrogatory and the reply thereto in the record.

We have also gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed the fault of the opposite party could not be established on the basis of expert evidences.  Moreover, the signature of Sati Rani Sen in the complaint tallies with the signature of the complainant filed before us on 3^rd November, 2015.  This has been verified with the original by the United Bank of India and no prayer was made by the complainant to send the signatures to the hand writing expert.

No police complaint was lodged by the complainant for withdrawal of Rs.2,000/- by an unauthorized person. 

Thus, the complainant has failed to establish that there was any fault on the basis of the opposite party bank.  Hence, after hearing of the both sides and considering all the materials on record we have inclined to hold that the complainant has failed to establish the case as required under the law.

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2015/15 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.