DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI.

C.C. NO. 41/2022

Date of Filing: 30.08.2022

Date of Order:  31.07.2023

Sri Umesh Chandra Digal,

S/O Late Chaitanya Digal,

At - Badamaha,

PO – Manikeswar, Raikia

E.Mail:uchandradigal@gmail.com

District - Kandhamal                          ………………….    Complainant.

Versus.

1. The Authorized Signatory,

Phonpe Private Limited, Unit No. 001,

Ground Floor, Boston House,

Suren Road, Off. Andheri Kurla Road,

Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400093

2. Branch Manager, SBI, Raikia

3. Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Raikia…………………..Opp. Parties.

Present:      Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President

                   Sri Sudhakar Senapothi             - Member

For the Complainant:               Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahu, Advocate

For the O.P.          No. 2:                             Sri V.V.Ramdas, Advocate

For the O.P.          No. 3 :                   Sri Kausik Sahu, Advocate, Baliguda

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra. President

          Complainant Smt. Umesh Chandra Digal has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not crediting the amount in his UCO Bank Account which has been transferred from his SBI account to UCO Bank and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to restore the balance in his account.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- from SBI account through PhonePe to UCO Bank and the transaction ID is P22010312582861509066. Even though the money was showing successful transaction of transfer, but it was not credited in his UCO Bank account for which he requested the OP No. 1 time and again. But, he did not respond in spite of his repeated approaches for which he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2.  After receipt of notice, all the Opposite Parties appeared before this Commission and filed their written statements separately. The OP No. 1 in his written statement stated that the disputed transaction has already been successfully credited to the beneficiaries bank account as maintained in the UCO Bank and hence nothing remains which entitles the complainant to raise any consumer dispute. So, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost.
3. Even though the OP Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate written statements, the contents of the OP No. 2 and 3 are almost the same. It is stated by the OP No. 2 and 3 that the amount was credited to the account number to which the complainant has given command over his mobile phone. Since he has given a wrong number, the amount has been credited to that account. After receiving the notice from Commission and after knowing about the correct account number, the money was hold by the bank and has been remitted back to the account of the petitioner. So, they have no mistake at all or no deficiency in service and the Opposite Parties are no way responsible non-crediting of the amount in the account number as stated by the complainant.
4. During the course of hearing, the complainant was present in the Commission and he stated that he has received back his money and is not inclined to proceed further and hence, the order.

O R D E R

          The complaint petition is disposed of accordingly and parties to bear their own cost in the peculiar facts and circumstances for the case.

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31^st July 2023 in the presence of the parties.