Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/660/2018

Mintu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Jun 2019

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	660 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	21.11.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	10.06.2019

 

 

 

 

Mintu s/o Sh.Amar Chand, r/o House NO.127, Gali No.10, Manimajra, Chandigarh  

          

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Axis Bank, Housing Board, SCO No.916, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

2]  State Bank of India ATM, Plot No No.169, Mauli Jagra, Vikasnagar, Chandigarh.

    2^nd Address:- State Bank of India, SCO No.838, NAC Kalka Shimla Road, Manimajra 160101.

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

         SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

Argued By:       Complainant in person.

None for Opposite Party No.1

Opposite Party No.2 exparte.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that he is holder of Savings Bank Account No.917010082830209 as well as ATM Card thereof.  It is stated that the complainant on 11.9.2018 visited the ATM factory of Opposite Party No.2 and inserted the card in said ATM (Automated Teller Machine) for withdrawal of Rs.3000/-, but during the transaction, the light went off and when it resumed, the ATM did not dispense the amount of Rs.3000/- though a message on the mobile of complainant showed the successful withdrawal of Rs.3000/-.  The matter was brought to the notice of the OPs, who assured about reversal of the amount within 7 days, but thereafter, when the complainant visited the Opposite Parties, they showed the SBI Statement to the effect that the cash has been withdrawn.  It is stated that no cash was dispensed from the ATM Machine and it was an unsuccessful transaction, but still the complainant has been made to suffer the loss of Rs.3000/-.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 initially put in appearance through Sh.Saurav Verma, Authorized Agent, but thereafter no one appeared on its behalf nor it filed reply/evidence and therefore, the defence of Opposite Party NO.1 was struck of vide order dated 27.5.2019.

         Opposite Party No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.3.2019. 

 

3]      Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The complainant submitted that on 11.9.2018 when he operated the ATM of State Bank of India/Opposite Party No.2 for withdrawal of Rs.3000/-, the transaction was failed due to sudden failure of electricity and when the electricity resumed, no amount, as was entered, was dispensed by the ATM, but it still has been shown as withdrawn/debited from his account on account of ATM Withdrawal.  It is further submitted that this matter was taken with concerned bank branch, but they did not refund the amount. 

 

6]       The Opposite Party No.1 initially put in appearance on 16.1.2019, but thereafter did not appear nor filed reply & evidence.

 

7]       The Opposite Party No.2 was served with notice of the complainant, sent through registered post, but despite that no one turned up on its behalf, hence Opposite Party No.2 proceeded exparte.

 

8]       After hearing the complainant and going through the entire documents available on file, we are of the opinion that the documents produced by the complainant are not sufficient enough to allow the present complaint in his favour.  The complainant has not placed on record any of the document pertaining to the complaint made to the concerned bank branch of OPs and the outcome of such complaint or the action taken thereon.  Rather, the receipt placed on record by complainant at Page No.6 reveals that the complainant successfully made cash withdrawal of Rs.3000/- through SBI ATM.  Moreover, the complainant has also not placed on record his bank account statement. For want of cogent evidence/document corroborates the version of the complainant, the present complaint is not allowed. 

 

9]       In view of the above, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties by leading sufficient documentary evidence.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed being without merit. No order as to costs.   

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

Announced

10^th June, 2019                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                              (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER