DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.169/2012

Shri Bhagwan Singh,

S/o Shri Chiranji Lal

R/o Village Tikri,

P.O. Fazil Pur,

Distt. Gurgaon (Haryana) and

Office of the P.C.R. South Zone G-22-23

Qutab Institutional Area

New Delhi-110016                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Axis Bank

          Khan Market, New Delhi

2.       ICICI Bank           

          Sushant Lok,

          Gurgaon                                                     ……Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution          : 13.04.12                                                            Date of Order        :  27.05.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member

O R D E R

S. S. Fonia, Member

Succinctly speaking, the case of the Complainant is that he was holding ATM Card No. 4902541200082836 of OP-1.  On 29.5.2011, he went to OP-2’s Bank at Sushant Lok, Gurgaon and is said to have used the ATM card to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- but no money came out of the ATM nor any slip came out from the ATM.  According to him, the cash was not received by him from the ATM of ICICI Bank, Gurgaon but the OP No. 2 told him that the money would be shown in his account in OP-1 bank. As advised, he went to the RBI. The staff of RBI told him that they will take three months time.   After this, he was told by RBI that his complaint had been closed because the transaction was successful.  Feeling aggrieved by not getting his grievances redressed he has approached this Forum with a claim of Rs. 15,000/- with interest.

 In the written statement, OP-1 has inter-alia stated that as per the information received by OP-1 from OP-2 ICICI Bank, Gurgaon Branch, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had been dispensed to the complainant through his ATM card as per copy of JP Log and transaction slip No. 1748 dated 29.5.2011 and no extra cash was found in the system.  It is pleaded that the journal printer in the ATM is the final proof of the transaction accepted across the world by all banks and the same cannot be manipulated by any person in any way whatsoever.  Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

In the reply, OP-2 ICICI Bank has also taken the similar plea.

 Complainant has filed a rejoinder (one) wherein it is inter-alia stated that he had no means of verifying the purported JP Log and Transaction Slip No. 1748 dated 29.5.2011 as no such Transaction Slip was received by him.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence attested by an Assistant Commissioner of Police though the same should have been got attested from a Notary Public or an Oath Commissioner.  A police officer of ACP rank is not legally authorized to attest the affidavits.  Despite that, we admit the affidavit of the complainant in evidence. In the affidavit, complainant has attached copy of his complaint to Banking Ombudsman of RBI, reply of OP-1 along  with JP Log, Cash Balance Report, ATM Transaction report and findings of Ombudsman.  These documents for the purpose of identification are marked as Annex. A, B, C, D, E & F respectively.  On the other hand, affidavit of  Sh. Vikas Anand, Branch Head of OP No.1 and of Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Legal Manager and AR of OP No.2 have been filed in evidence  on behalf of the OPs

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the material placed before us.

Now we formulate the issue, whether the relief prayed for is admissible to the Complainant or not? 

Admittedly, the details of ATM transaction as revealed in Annex. C, D & E unequivocally establish successful transaction of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank account of the complainant through ATM.  The report of  Banking Ombudsman  Annex. ‘F’ also finds that as per JP log, the Switch report and cash reconciliation statement, the disputed transaction of Rs. 10,000/- was cleared and successful and there was no excess cash.  We find that for a summary trial, sufficient evidence exists to demolish the complainant’s case.

In view of above discussion,  we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

     Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(S. S. Fonia)                                                               (Naina Bakshi)                                                                                       (N. K. Goel)

Member                                                                          Member                                                                                               President

Announced on  27.05.16.

Case No. 169/12

27.5.2016

Present –   None.

          Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed.  Let the file be consigned to record room.

(S. S. Fonia)                                                               (Naina Bakshi)                                                                                       (N. K. Goel)

Member                                                                          Member                                                                                               President