Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/147/2022

NARESH BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANDHRA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 147/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Naresh Bhatia S/o Sh. G.L Bhatia R/o F-111, Madipur Colony, Delhi-110063	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Manager Andhra Bank H-32/4, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085   Incharge ATM, State Bank of India Jwala Heri, 1st Floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063   Also at:- State Bank of India North West-1 10th Floor, Local Head Office 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001	Opposite Party No.1                       Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

13.06.18 14.03.23 02.06.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President  

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 12.04.18 Complainant withdraws Rs. 5,000/- from ATM of Opposite Party No.2 with his debit card of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant is having a current account in the Opposite Party No.1 bank.  The Complainant stated that after operating the ATM machine the machine did not dispense the cash. The Complainant stated that he also lodged complaint at Opposite Party No.1 service centre vide complaint no. 201804122320732. The Complainant stated that official of Opposite Party No.1 gave assurance that his amount will be credited in his account within one week. On 24.04.18 Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.1 vide complaint no. 2549000203 and officials of Opposite Party No.1 gave false assurance that his amount will be credited in his account within one week. The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and also sent emails to Opposite Party No.1 regarding false transaction to Opposite Party No.2 but all in vain. The Complainant demanded for CCTV footage but officials of Opposite Party No.2 did not provide the same. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 informed that on 12.04.18 transaction of Rs. 5,000/- was successful.  The Complainant visited various time for providing the video clip but officials of Opposite Party gave false assurance. Hence, this shows deficiency on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/- with interest and Rs. 100/- per day penalty till realization. He further prayed for compensation towards litigation expenses and Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to Opposite Parties. The manager of the Opposite Party No.1 appeared on 20.08.19. However, no written statement /reply was filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.2 that the Complainant has filed a false case. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part.   It is alleged that the transaction  regarding  withdrawal of the cash was successful. It is also stated that Complainant is not its consumer. It is alleged that the Complainant has concocted a false story. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Sh. Sameer Gupta, Chief Manager of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No.2. The case of the Complainant is that he is having an account in the bank of Opposite Party No.1 and he is also having debit cared pertaining to his said account. His case is that on 12.04.18 he went to the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 for withdrawal of      Rs. 5,000/-. His case is that he did not receive the cash and an amount of        Rs. 5,000 is debited from his account. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that it was a successful transaction as per its record and therefore it has no liability to pay any amount to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 is banker of the Complainant. The Complainant has informed Opposite Party No.1 regarding the transaction. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 did not take any action to look into the matter. The Opposite Party No.1 did not file any written statement and thus it has no defense. The allegations of the Complainant have been supported with his affidavit therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that as the Opposite Party No.1 did not take any action to look into the matter, so there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
7. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.  
8. Order announced on 02.06.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President