Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/08/2965

ASHISH SHRIWASTAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. UMESHWAR DAYAL

02 Mar 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2965 OF 2008

(Arising out of order dated 15.10.2007 passed in C. C. No.231/2007 by District Forum, Jabalpur)

 

ASHISH SHRIVASTAVA,

S/O SHRI K. L. SHRIVASTAVA,

R/O 11, SWASTIK COMPLEX, RUSSEL CHOWK,

JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                                                            ….       APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

UNION BANK OF INDIA,

THROUGH MANAGER,

NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                                 ….       RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :    PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :    MEMBER

        

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for appellant.

Shri Sanjay Acharya, learned counsel for respondent.

 

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 02.03. 2019)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant is against the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur (For short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No. 231/2007 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                     The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he has a savings bank account no. 52200210302032 in the opposite party branch.  A sum of Rs.25,662/- were debited from his aforesaid account without prior notice which amounts to deficiency in service on part of opposite party. 

3.                     The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the aforesaid amount was debited by system generation on account of authority given by the appellant to the other branch.  The complainant should have made necessary arrangements for payment of instalments of loan taken from two different branches and authority given by him in this respect.

4.                     Heard. Perused the record.

 

-2-

5.                     Learned counsel for complainant/appellant argued that the Forum has erroneously passed the impugned order without relying on the evidence on record.  The Forum has ignored this important aspect that the complainant/appellant never filled any voucher for debiting amount from his account.  No authority to any other branch was given by him in this regard.  It is negligence on part of the opposite party that without any authority, amount was debited from his account.

6.                     Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent has filed written arguments wherein it is stated that not even a single cheque, issued in connection with loan transaction, was debited after the date of ‘stop payment’ instruction from the complainant/appellant.  The respondent has neither debited nor transferred a sum of Rs. 25,662/-, as alleged by the appellant to another branch in respect of appellant’s other loan account but it was debited by system generation on account of authority given by the appellant.  It is further submitted that it is not possible to furnish details of transaction of appellant with other branch, due to want of knowledge as other branch is not made a party in the complaint filed by him. There is no question of obtaining any authority from the complainant/appellant when the respondent themselves have not debited any amount, which was done by system generation to the other branch. No question of informing the complainant/appellant arises in this matter, as alleged transfer was not done by the respondent. The appellant is not eligible for any kind of relief. Harassment, if any, as alleged is because of the appellant himself, since he had taken two vehicle loans from two branches simultaneously but did not make any plan for repayment of loans. 

7.                     Perusal of account statement of savings bank account of the appellant reveals that no amount through cheque, was debited from his account after receiving instructions of ‘stop payment’ on 15.03.2005.  The respondent submits that the aforesaid amount was debited directly by the Jabalpur City Branch of the respondent bank directly through Core Banking Solution, since he had availed vehicle loan from Jabalpur City Branch.

8.                     In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the allegation of the complainant/appellant that the amount was debited from his account by the respondent even after ‘stop payment’ instructions is not substantiated with evidence. Clearly, no amount was debited against cheque, but directly debited by another branch towards loan recovery.   The complainant/appellant has not challenged the submissions of opposite

-3-

party/respondent by way of counter affidavit.  In this view of the matter, the opposite party/respondent cannot be held deficient in service.  The impugned order is affirmed and this appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

           (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)                  (DR. MONIKA MALIK)

                           PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER