DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 401/2014
Sh. Kaushal Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Dina Nath Singh
R/o H.No.1, Gali No.1,
Neb Sarai, IGNOU Road,
New Delhi-110068 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Axis Bank Limited
(Through its Manager/Branch Manager/AR)
E-146, Saket, New Delhi-110017
2. Indian Bank
(Through its Manager/Branch Manager/AR)
D-41, Sector-59, Noida, UP ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 27.10.2014 Date of Order : 04.02.2020
Coram:
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
- Case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has a Saving Bank account in Indian Bank (OP-2) and an ATM was issued by OP-2 to enable him to easily withdraw money from his account. The complainant visited the ATM of Axis Bank (OP-1) on 25.11.2013 to withdraw an amount of Rs.1000/-. The complainant successfully withdrew Rs.1000/-. It is averred that he received a withdrawal slip from the ATM but within few days its ink vanished/got removed automatically. But later he was shocked to see the Mini Statement dispensed from the ATM. The complainant saw that another Rs.6000/- has been deducted just after his withdrawal of Rs.1000/- which he assumed was due to some mechanical fault in the machine. The complainant received cash of Rs.1000/- only. It is averred that the complainant never tried for any withdrawal of Rs.6000/- therefore the amount of Rs.6000/- has been wrongly and illegally deducted by both OPs. Complainant, thereafter, made considerable efforts and visited both the banks several times to get the problem rectified but to no avail.
- Thus, aggrieved by the circumstances above, the complainant approached this Forum for directions to the OPs to refund the deducted amount of Rs.6000/- with interest and further directions to OPs to compensate the complainant by paying sum of Rs.50000/- and Rs.20000/- for mental torture, pain and litigation charges.
- OP-1 resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that as per information received from OP-2, the said disputed transaction of Rs.6000/- was done through ATM ID F30N3455 which pertains to Central Bank of India and not to OP-1. Thus, the complainant neither has the locus standi nor cause of action for filing the present complaint against OP-1.
- It is next submitted that complainant had withdrawn Rs.6000/- initially from the ATM of some other bank and then again withdrew sum of Rs.1000/- from the ATM machine of OP-1. The complainant himself has submitted that he had successfully withdrawn an amount of Rs.1000/- which shows that the ATM machine of OP-1 was working satisfactorily. Further it is submitted that the complainant is disputing an amount of Rs.6000/- which was withdrawn prior to successful transaction of Rs.1000/- and that too from the ATM of some other bank. It is thus prayed that as there is no deficiency of service qua OP-1, therefore, the complaint be dismissed.
- OP-2 has also contested the complaint and filed its written statement wherein inter-alia it is submitted that complainant is having a bank account with OP-2 and OP-2 has also provided an ATM card to the complainant but if the complainant has withdrawn its money from the ATM of OP-1 then only OP-1 bank is responsible for the transactions therein. OP-2 is not liable in any manner whatsoever, therefore it is submitted that as the present complaint is without any cause of action qua OP-2, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.
- Rejoinder to the written statements and evidence by way of affidavit are filed by the complainant wherein the averments made in the complaint are reiterated. Evidence of Shri V.S. Babu Deputy President of OP-1 and evidence of Ms. Anjana Kusum Branch Manager of OP-2 are filed on behalf of the parties.
- Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties.
- Submissions made by the parties are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
- There is no denying the fact that as per RBI guidelines that all disputes regarding failed ATM transactions have to be settled by issuing and the acquiring bank through the ATM assistant provider. It is complainant’s case that the complainant visited OP-1’s ATM on 25.11.2013 for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.1000/- and he successfully withdrew the amount of Rs.1000/-. However, later from the Mini ATM statement complainant noticed that Rs.6000/- has been deducted from his account after his withdrawal of Rs.1000/-. Copy of the Bank Statement and Mini Statement dated 05/01/14 have been annexed as Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 with the complaint. On perusal of the Bank Statement annexed as Annexure-2 it is noticed that Rs.6000/- were withdrawn prior to the withdrawal of Rs.1000/- on 25.11.2013. Another transaction mentioned in the Bank Statement on 25.11.2013 is Rs.10/- charged to the complainant on account of an ATM enquiry fee.
- Same facts are reaffirmed on scrutinizing the Mini Statement annexed as Annexure-3. The Mini Statement is issued by Central Bank of India on 05.01.2014, wherein three transactions are shown on 25.11.2013. First is ATM withdrawal of Rs.6000/-, second is ATM withdrawal of Rs.1000/- and third is ATM enquiry Rs.10/-.
- Complainant in the rejoinder has not specifically denied the stand of OP No. 1 that the disputed transaction of Rs.6000/- was done through ATM pertaining to Central Bank of India and not the Axis Bank (OP No.1). Therefore, no deficiency as such can be attributed to OP No.1 as Rs.6000/- was not withdrawn from their ATM. The complaint cannot proceed against OP-2 as well as the complainant has not impleaded necessary party i.e. Central Bank of India.
- In view of the above discussion, this forum is of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 and accordingly, we dismiss the complaint on account of non-joinder of necessary party.
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.
Announced on 04.02.2020
