BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.



Consumer Complaint No: 343/2004

Date of presentation: 01.07.2004

Date of decision: 09.03.2009



****************

Smt. Sheela Thakur W/O Shri D.R. Thakur, R/O Quarter No.16, C.P.W.D. Longwood, Karegru, Shimla-1, H.P.



… Complainant

Versus



Indian Bank, The Mall Shimla,

Through its Manager.

…Opposite Party

Coram



Shri Pritam Singh (District Judge) President.

Mr. Charanjit Singh, Member (Male)

………………………………………………………………………..



For the complainant: Mr. Dheeraj Bansal, Advocate vice

Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Dabinder Gosh, Advocate



O R D E R:

Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged by the complainant that she is holder of saving bank account No.5824 with the OP-Bank and that at the time of opening the account, a pass port size photographs was affixed on the form as per requirement of bank. It is further alleged that she lost her original pass book in September, 2001 and approached the OP and requested to issue duplicate pass book to her which was subsequently issued by the OP. That when she checked the entries made in the duplicate pass book, she was surprised to know that sum of Rs.16,000/- stood withdrawn from her saving bank account on different dates, i.e. Rs.8,000/- on 21.09.2001 and another sum of Rs.8,000/- on 31.01.2002, whereas she did not withdraw the said amount. That she approached the OP-Bank and made request to rectify the mistake, but of no avail. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OP-Bank.

2. The complaint is resisted by OP-Bank who by filing reply took some preliminary objections alleging that the complaint is false, & frivolous, and jurisdiction etc. On merits, they alleged that the amount of Rs.16,000/- was paid to the bearer of the withdrawal form, who was authorized by the complainant herself to withdraw money on her behalf. That she has concocted this false story that other person has withdrawn the money from her saving bank account to grab more money from bank. It is further alleged that earlier also, the complainant had withdrawn sum of Rs.1,000/- through her agent Shri Amar Singh on 26.07.2001. As said amount of Rs.16,00/- has been paid to the bearer of the withdrawal slip, hence, there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. Thereafter, the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim/counter claim.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

4. Undisputedly, the complainant, Smt. Sheela Devi, is holder of saving bank account No.5824 with the OP-Bank and pass book had been issued to her containing her affixed photograph. The complainant alleged that her original pass book was lost in September, 2001 and she approached the OP-Bank and made request to issue duplicate pass book to her which was ultimately issued by the OP-Bank. That when she checked the entries made in the duplicate pass book, she found that sum of Rs.16,000/- has been shown withdrawn from her saving bank account on different dates, i.e. a sum of Rs.8,000/- was shown withdrawn on 21.09.2001 and another sum of same amount on 31.01.2002, whereas she never withdrew the aforesaid amount from her saving back account.

5. The OP-Bank in the reply, however, alleged that the aforesaid two amounts of Rs.8,000/-each were withdrawn by the complainant through her agent Shri Amar Singh duly authorized to withdraw these amounts by signing withdrawal forms and this false story has been subsequently concocted by her in connivance with her agent malafide to cause financial loss to OP-Bank. It is further alleged by the OP-Bank that earlier also the aforesaid bearer/agent (Shri Amar Singh) of complainant also withdrew a sum of Rs.1,000/- from her saving bank account on 26.07.2001. The OP-Bank also placed on record the photo copies of the withdrawal slips Annexures R-2 to R-4. As per these withdrawal slips, i.e. Annexure R-2 & R-3, a sum of Rs.8,000/-each was withdrawn by the complainant vide these withdrawal slips on 21.09.2001 & 31.01.2002 respectively through her authorized agent/bearer of withdrawal slips Shri Amar Singh as the endorsement available on the reverse of both the slips are clear vide which said agent Shri Amar Singh was authorized by the complainant to withdraw the aforesaid amounts. These withdrawal slips are duly issued under the signatures of the complainant. Moreover, the sum of Rs.1,000/- was also withdrawn by the complainant from her saving bank account on 26.07.2001 vide Annexure R-4 through the said agent Shri Amar Singh as the endorsement available on the reverse page of this slip Annexure R-4 is duly signed by the complainant who authorized agent/bearer Shri Amar Singh to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,000/- from her saving bank account.

6. The complainant did not opt to file rejoinder to controvert the aforesaid specific allegation of the OP-Bank. The legal notice sent by the complainant through her counsel to the OP-Bank vide Annexure R-5 was duly replied by the OP-Bank vide Annexure R-6 wherein it has been specifically alleged that the aforesaid amounts were duly withdrawn by the complainant from her saving bank account through her agent/bearer of withdrawal slips. Even in affidavit filed by complainant in support of her complaint these allegation of the OP-Bank are not specifically disputed by her.

7. Pertinent to state that if the signatures of the complainant available on these withdrawal slips are seen and compared with naked eyes with her signatures available on the complaint, and other documents of case these signatures do tally. As the aforesaid clinching documentary evidence led on record by the OP-Bank was not controverted by the complainant by leading cogent and reliable evidence in this behalf, therefore, in the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid disputed amounts of Rs.8,000/-each total Rs.16,000/- were withdrawn by the complainant through her agent/bearer of withdrawal slip on 24.09.2001 and 31.01.2002 and contrary allegations of the complainant stand belied.

8. For the foregoing reasons, and discussion the complaint being merit less and vexatious is liable to be dismissed with special cost and we accordingly dismiss the same with special cost quantified at Rs.3,000/- payable by the complainant to the OP-Bank under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Announced on this, the 9th day of March, 2009.





(Pritam Singh)

President.







NMehta) (Charanjit Singh)

Member.