Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/567/2015

Ayodhya Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Money Goyal

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	567 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	06.10.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	03.06.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ayodhya Nath son of Sh.Ram Lal, 721-B, Small Flats, Dhanas, Chandigarh.  

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Axis Bank Limited, through its Manager, Manimajra Branch, Manimajra.

 

2]  Axis Bank Ltd., through its Managing Director,  Corporate Office, Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400025

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:-

            Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

            Sh.Saurav Goyal, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant is having a bank account in OP No.1 Bank bearing No.911010055350376 and an ATM Card has also been issued against it.  It is averred that there was some fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- at Lucknow on 28.11.2014, which was brought to the notice of Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh, who vide letter dated 1.7.2015 showed his inability to do anything. The complainant also brought this matter to the notice of police, but to no effect.  It is pleaded that the complainant has been deprived of his hard earned money due to defect in ATM etc. or their machines for which the OP Bank is responsible and the complainant is to be compensated by the Bank for the loss caused to him. The complainant also wrote letters to the OP Bank in this regard, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and admitted that the complainant’s having account with it as well as issuance of ATM Card against it.  It is stated that the complainant approached the answering OP regarding transaction of Rs.50,000/- which he had claimed that the said transactions are not done by him.  That OP No.1 had verified the account statement of the complainant immediately and found that five transaction of Rs.10,000/- each, totaling Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant from the ATM of State Bank of India, Lucknow on 28.11.2014 (Ann.R-1).  It is also stated that answering OP informed the State Bank of India regarding the claim raised by the complainant (Ann.R-2).  However, the State Bank of India had closed/rejected the claim of the complainant and further certified that as per journal printer/electronic journal print log, the transaction No.7284, 7285, 7286, 7287 and 7288, dated 28.11.2014 are successful and as per branch ATM replenishment cum verification records no excess cash amount was found in ATM for this transactions (Ann.R-3).  The copy of electronic journal print log of the disputed transaction and the queries raised with the State Bank of India have been annexed as Ann.R-4 & R-5.  It is pleaded that the compliant lodged with Banking Ombudsman had been disposed of (Ann.R-6). 

         OP No.2 did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 16.11.2015.  However, OP NO.2 put in appearance through Sh.Saurav Goyal, Advocate at the time of final arguments.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply of OP NO.1.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the OPs on the score that on the fateful day of 28.11.2014, five unauthorized transactions had taken place, at the ATM machine of State Bank of India, Lucknow, due to which the complainant lost Rs.50,000/- and the same are shown as debited from his account maintained with OPs. 

 

7]       The complainant had raised the matter with the OPs by filing ‘Claim Back Form’, but the matter was closed by the OPs, after sourcing information from the State Bank of India, Lucknow Branch.  It is also disclosed by the OPs that one of their officers namely Ms.Gaurangi Dattatraya Joshi working with the Centralized Reconciliation & Settlement Centre of the Ops had shared communications with the State Bank of India, annexed as Ann.R-5, but the State Bank of India, failed to reply the reminders and additional documents.  The OPs have also claimed that the complainant’s application with the Banking Ombudsman was disposed of citing the elaborate documentary and oral evidence, as reason. 

 

8]       The complainant, who had specifically alleged that the ATM Machine, where the unauthorized transaction had occurred was defective, resulting into a loss of Rs.50,000/-.  However, the reply of the OPs with regard to the said allegations, is self contradictory for the reason that the OPs Parawise Reply in Para No.4 clearly states that “O.P No.1 has verified the account statement of the complainant immediately and found that the five transactions of Rs.10,000/- each, totaling Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant from the ATM of the State Bank of India, Lucknow on 28.11.2014.”

 

9]       Whereas, at the end of the same paragraph, it is disclosed that one of their Officers namely Ms.Gaurangi Dattatraya Joshi, had raised certain queries and demand of additional document, which were not replied by State Bank of India after several reminders. Furthermore, even the documents placed on record by the OPs do not confirm the presence of complainant at the disputed ATM Machine of the SBI, Lucknow, when five unauthorized transactions had occurred, leaving the complainant poor by Rs.50,000/-.  Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of the OPs, the suspense over the faulty ATM machine, as alleged by the complainant, has remained unaddressed.  The OPs cannot escape their liability of having allowed the debiting of Rs.50,000/- from complainant’s account without properly verifying the transactions through which such demand was made by the SBI, Lucknow Branch. 

 

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

 

[c]      To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount, as at sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

3^rd June, 2016                                                                        Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER