| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 165 of 2015 Date of Institution: 19-03-2015 Date of Decision: 16-09-2015 Sweeti Kapoor aged about 55 years wife of Sh.Vipan Kapoor, resident of 4-SG, Enclave, Majitha Road, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Axis Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager, BO Lawrence Road Extension, Amritsar.
- ICICI Bank Limited, through its Branch Manager, BO Gopal Nagar, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.D.P.Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.H.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.S.K.Vyas, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Sweeti Kapoor under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she is customer of Opposite Party No.1 Bank having saving bank account No. 9120100620683879 and for the convenience of complainant, said bank had issued debit card No. 4179 1700 3368 9652 and the complainant is using this debit card to withdraw money from her account as per her needs. On 20.10.2014 the complainant was in need of money of Rs.30,000/- and to withdraw the amount, she went to ATM of Opposite Party No.2 and inserted her debit card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- first time and thereafter, Rs.10000/- second time and third time for Rs.10,000/-, but the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 disbursed Rs.10,000/- in two times each, but third time, the ATM had not dispensed Rs.10,000/- and when the complainant asked from the guide posted at the ATM of Opposite Party No.2, he told that the disbursement to customers of other banks from their ATM is only upto Rs.25,000/- in a day to one customer in his one account. The complainant thereafter, went to another nearby ATM of Punjab National Bank and withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on the same date. The complainant was surprised to check her bank account that Rs.10,000/- as debited from her account which was not dispensed to the complainant from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, both the Opposite Parties assured that credit of Rs.10,000/- wrongly debited in complainant’s account will be credited in her account after reconciliation. The complainant lodged her written complaint with Opposite Party No.1 on 21.10.2014, but despite lapse of times, the said credit of Rs.10,000/- is not given in the account of complainant by the Opposite Parties. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.10,000/- alongwith upto date interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the record of Opposite Party No.2, the withdrawals of complainant were successful, so it is specifically denied that the third time ATM had not dispensed Rs.10,000/- as alleged. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the records, the bank had received a charge back under single dispute multiple transaction from complainant’s banker (Axis Bank-Opposite Party No.1) for transaction number 531974/531976/ 531976 for Rs.10000/- each on October 22, 2014. However, on verification with records of the Opposite Party No.2, it was found that the said transactions were successful and fully paid one. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 had represented the transactions on October 27, 2014. The Opposite Party No.2 however again rechecked records of the bank and found the said transaction to be successful and fully paid one. Further, no excess cash was reported for the said day. As far as CCTV clippings are concerned, same are not available with the bank as same have been overwritten. The complainant is claiming that she had not received this amount of Rs.10,000/- whereas as per records of the Opposite Party No.2, the amount had been dispensed by the machine. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of card holder dispute form Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Akshay, Branch Head Ex.OP1/1, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP1/2 and and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
- Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ms.Aarti Sharma Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copy of document Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant has saving bank account bearing No. 9120100620683879 with Opposite Party No.1-Bank with debit card No. 4179 1700 3368 9652. On 20.10.2014, the complainant was in need of money of Rs.30,000/- and to withdraw the amount, she used her debit card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- for the first time and thereafter, Rs.10,000/- second time and third time for Rs.10,000/-, but the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 disbursed Rs.10,000/- in two times each, whereas third time, the ATM had not dispensed Rs.10,000/-. Complainant alleged that she enquired from the guide posted at the ATM of Opposite Party No.2, he told that the disbursement to customers of other banks from their ATM is only upto Rs.25,000/- in a day to one customer in her one account. The complainant thereafter, went to another nearby ATM of Punjab National Bank and withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on the same date. However, the complainant when checked her account, she found that Rs.10,000/- were debited to her account which were not dispensed to the complainant from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant lodged written compliant on 21.10.2014 with Opposite Party No.1 Ex.C3, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that as per the record of Opposite Party No.2, all the withdrawals of complainant were successful, so it is specifically denied that the third time ATM had not dispensed Rs.10,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, the Opposite Party-Bank debited Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 qua the complainant.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. As per the record of the Opposite Party No.2-Bank, they have received a charge back under single dispute multiple transaction from complainant’s banker i.e. Axis Bank-Opposite Party No.1 for transaction number 531974/531976/ 531976 for Rs.10000/- each, on October 22, 2014. On verification with record of the Opposite Party No.2, it was found that all the three transactions were successful and fully paid one. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 had represented the transactions on October 27, 2014. The Opposite Party No.2 however again checked record of the bank and found that all these three transactions to be successful and fully paid one. Further, no excess cash was reported for the said day. In this regard, Opposite Party No.2-Bank has produced details of the transactions No. 531974/531976/ 531976 Ex.OP2/2. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 qua the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion and perusal of the details of ATM machine of Opposite Party No.2 Ex.OP2/2, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant has saving bank account with Opposite Party No.1-Axis Bank with debit card facility. The complainant used her debit card on 20.10.2014 at the ATM of Opposite Party No.2-ICICI Bank to withdraw money. Firstly, she used her debit card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on 20.10.2014 at 11.12.13 hours and that transaction was successful and the complainant received Rs.10,000/- with transaction serial No. 1974. Second time, on the same day i.e. 20.10.2014 the complainant used his debit card in ATM of Opposite Party No.2 for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- at 11.13.02 hours and the transaction was successful i.e. transaction serial No.1975 and that amount was received by the complainant from ATM of Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, she used her ATM for the third time on the same day i.e. 20.10.2014 at 11.13.47 hours i.e. transaction serial No. 1976 which was also successful and the complainant received Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2. As per record of ATM of Opposite Party No.2 Ex.OP2/2, all the aforesaid 3 transactions of Rs.10,000/- each were successful and the complainant received Rs.10,000/- each three times and in all received Rs.30,000/- from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 also produced on record opening and closing balance sheet of ATM of 20.10.2014 which also proves that no amount was left within ATM and difference was Nil. The complainant could not produce any evidence that the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 was not working properly nor the complainant could produce any material regarding any other transaction on the same ATM of Opposite Party No.2 on 20.10.2014 which was not successful due to defect in the ATM of Opposite Party No.2. It has been held by Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh in case Rajeshwar Singh Vs. State bank & Ors 2008(3) CLT page 242 that where the withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- was denied by the complainant, the record of the bank positively indicated that an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been withdrawn by using ATM card of the complainant/ appellant. The appellant has not led any evidence that he has not withdrawn the amount or ATM system of Opposite Party was not in operation. Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh has held that District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. Similar are the facts of the present case.
- So, keeping in view the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove on record that her third transaction regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was not successful.
- Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 16-09-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
