Haryana

Sonipat

CC/157/2015

RAKESH KUMAR S/O BHANWAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH KUMAR BEDI

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.157 of 2015                                             Instituted on: 12.05.2015

                                Date of order: 23.10.2015

 

Rakesh Kumar son of  Bhanwar Singh, r/o village and post office Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.Bank of Baroda, Branch Kundli, distt. Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

2.Corporation Bank, Branch Kundli, distt. Sonepat through its Branch Manager.             

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bedi Adv. for complainant.

          Sh. Ajay Singh Gehlawat Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Trilochan Mago, Adv.for respondent no.2.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant is having saving bank account bearing no. 26500100001834 with respondent no.1 and is also having the ATM Card issued by respondent no.1.  On 14.2.2015 the complainant used the ATM of respondent no.2 and made two transactions of Rs.10,000/- andRs.6500/- respectively, but no cash was received and the amount of Rs.16500/- was debited from the complainant’s account.  The complainant made so many complaints to the respondents, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and filed their written statement separately.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1. The complainant has used the ATM of respondent no.2 on 14.2.2015 for withdrawal of the amount. If the cash was not dispensed with, the respondent no.2 only is responsible for that unsuccessful transaction.  The respondent no.2 have replied to respondent no.1  that as per the EJ File and switch report, transaction is successful and overages were not found in ATM.    The respondent no.1 is not responsible for any harassment or mental agony. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the transaction made by the complainant on 14.2.2015 was successful and no excess cash was found in the ATM. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has used the ATM of respondent no.2 on 14.2.2015 for withdrawal of Rs.10000/- and Rs.6500/-, but no cash was dispensed to him, whereas Rs.16500/- were debited from the complainant’s account.

          He further submitted that the complainant is having the account no.26500100001834 with the respondent no.1 whereas they have submitted the record of account no.2650010000183 which pertains to some Rakesh Sharma, whereas the name of the complainant is Rakesh Kumar.  Further the transaction was made by the complainant on 14.2.2015, but the respondents have submitted the record of transaction of dated which has no relevance with the case of the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 have also argued their case that the transaction was successful and there is no deficiency in their service.

 

          But there is no rebuttal from the side of the respondents to the version i.e. they have submitted the record of account no. 2650010000183 of Rakesh Sharma, whereas the complainant’s name is Rakesh Kumar and his account number is 26500100001834.  Further the complainant made transaction on 14.2.2015 and they have submitted the record which has no relevance with the case of the complainant.  Further during the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the statement of account for the period 14.02.2015 to 28.4.2015 (Statement of account generated on 21.10.2015) to prove that the amount of Rs.16500/- was debited from the complainant’s account on 14.2.2015, but till date it has not been credited in the complainant’s account. In our view, the respondent no.2 has failed to prove that the transaction made by the complainant was successful in any manner.  Thus, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and we direct the respondent no.2 to make the payment of Rs.16,500/- to the respondent no.1 alongwith with interest at the saving rate from 14.2.2015 till its realization and the respondent no.1 is directed to credit the amount in the complainant’s account after its receipt from the respondent no.2.  The respondent no.2 is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Rs.two  thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and  under the head of litigation expenses.  The present complaint, thus, stands allowed qua respondent no.2.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 23.10.2015