National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs Harshita Arora on 30 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 633 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 12/12/2014 in Appeal No. 63/2014 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA MINI SECRETARIAT , THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HISAR HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. HARSHITA ARORA W/O KAMAL ARORA, CIVIL LINES, PAHARIA, TONK RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate Mr. P. Gowtham, Advocate Mr. B.L. Kathod, Manager, SBI For the Respondent : NEMO Dated : 30 Apr 2015 ORDER The complainant / respondent and her husband had a joint account with State Bank of India. According to the complainant her father-in-law deposited two amounts of Rs.65,000/- each with the Bank on 06.5.2010 by way of two separate deposit slips. However, only one deposit was found entered in the ledger of the bank. Being aggrieved from the failure of the bank to credit the second deposit of Rs.65,000/- in her account, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum, seeking payment of Rs.65,000/-, along with compensation and cost of litigation.
2. The complaint was resisted by the bank on the ground that only one amount of Rs.65,000/- was deposited in the account of the complainant and therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the bank in rendering services to her.
3. Vide its order dated 18.11.2013, the concerned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.12.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner bank to deposit a sum of Rs.65,000/- in the account of the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 06.5.2010. The petitioner bank was also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. Being aggrieved the petitioner bank is before us by way of this revision petition.
4. Notice of the revision petition was sent to the complainant / respondent and was duly served upon her. She however, decided not to appear and sent a letter to the Commission, blaming the bank officials for her grievance. We have therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The only question which arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the father-in-law of the complainant deposited only one amount or two amounts of Rs.65,000/- each with the petitioner bank on 06.5.2010. Ordinarily, if a person wants to deposit Rs.1,30,000/- on the same day in the same account, he would make the deposit at one go instead of depositing it by way of two separate deposits. There is no explanation from the complainant for adopting the rather unusual course of making two deposits of the same amount on the same day and in the same account.
6. The case of the complainant is based primarily upon two counterfoils issued to her by the bank, both showing deposits of Rs.65,000/- each on 06.5.2010. A perusal of the photocopies of the counterfoils would show that the word 'duplicate' was written by the bank on one of the counterfoils. The case of the bank in this regard is that after first counterfoil had been issued to the father-in-law of the complainant, he came back to the bank and requested them to issue a duplicate counterfoil on the ground that the original counterfoil had been misplaced by him. The word 'duplicate' written on one of the counterfoils clearly supports the case set out by the bank in this regard. The explanation given by the complainant in this regard is that when he went to the bank along with the original counterfoils to lodge a complaint on account of credit not having been given to him for one of the two deposits of Rs.65,000/- each, the bank officials surreptitiously wrote the word 'duplicate' on one of the counterfoils, despite protest by him. However, the case set up by the complainant in this regard does not appeal to us at all. This is complainant's own case that her father-in-law had noticed the word 'duplicate' on one of the counterfoils while in the bank. Had the aforesaid word been written without his consent and despite protest by him, he would atleast have made a complaint to the higher officials of the bank against the aforesaid misconduct of the concerned branch officials. Alternatively, he would have sent a notice to the bank alleging therein that the bank officials had surreptitiously written the word 'duplicate' on one of the counterfoils. That having not been done, we are not inclined to accept the case set out by the complainant in this regard.
7. The complainant did not produce any evidence to prove the source from which Rs.1,30,000/- were drawn by her on 06.5.2010. A perusal of the final report submitted by the police on an FIR lodged by the complainant Harshita Arora, would show that Shri Kamal Arora, husband of the complainant had withdrawn only Rs.65,000/- from his account with ICICI bank. Since the complainant did not produce any proof of the withdrawing the balance amount of Rs.65,000/-, the inevitable inference would be that only one amount of Rs.65,000/- was deposited by her father-in-law with the bank on 06.5.2010.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no deficiency on the part of the petitioner bank, in rendering services to the complainant, is made out. The revision petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER