BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 62 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.03.2017
Date of Decision : 29.11.2017
Mangat Ram Sharma (aged about 61 years) son of Sh. Roop Ram Sharma, resident of Bhadra Bazar, Fadian Wali Gali, Sirsa, now residing at Gali No.6, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- The Bank Manager, Canara Bank, Main Branch Sirsa, District Sirsa.
- The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Office, Sector-12, Karnal, District Karnal.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. H.S. Raghav, proxy counsel for Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having a saving account in branch of the op no.1 bearing account no. 14003101016309 and the complainant has been continuously operating his above said account. On 23.09.2016, the complainant visited Delhi for some urgent work, where he was in dire need of Rs.20,000/- and as such he visited the ATM of Canara Bank situated at New Delhi and used his ATM Card thorugh the ATM Machine and gave a command of cash withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- and immediately an alert message regarding deduction of Rs.20,000/- from his above said account was received by the complainant on his registered mobile number, but no currency came out from the said ATM machine. The complainant waited for a long period which standing in front of that ATM machine, then the complainant was stunned to see that no currency came out from the ATM till a long period, upon which the complainant immediately approached the Branch of Canara Bank situated near the said ATM at Delhi and disclosed the above said fact and the complainant was told that the said error will be sorted out by the op no.1 as the complainant is having his saving account with the op no.1. Thereafter, on 26.09.2016 the complainant returned to Sirsa and visited the premise of the op no.1 and disclosed the above said whole facts to op no.1 and requested to correct the above said error by deleting the said false transaction and upon which the op no.1 sent a mail to the higher authorities regarding the complaint of the complainant, but till today the said error was never sorted out and the ops are intentionally putting off the complainant with the one pretext or the other and lingering on the matter with lame excuses whereas the said transaction is liable to be canceled being wrong and incorrect, against law and against fact, against mandatory provisions and against natural justice but ops have postponed the matter with one pretext or the other with false excuses. The said false and illegal deduction shows that some bungling has been played by the op-bank with the complainant in order to usurp the money of the complainant and to cause unnecessary harm/loss to the complainant and to cause loss of interest upon the amount of Rs.20,000/-. Such an act and conduct on their part amounts to unfair trade practice, fraud and cheating upon the complainant and to cause wrongful gain to the bank. It is further averred that complainant also sent a legal notice on 20.12.2016 to the ops advising them to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 23.09.2016 upto date or to deposit the same in account of complainant and to compensate him but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement in which they have taken certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability, suppression of material facts, estoppel, jurisdiction, mis-joinder of necessary party and that from the bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, no consumer complaint is made out against the answering ops and that complainant has failed to avail the departmental remedy prior to filing of the present complaint. It is further submitted that as soon as the answering ops received the request of the complainant they immediately referred the matter to the manager ATM Nodal Cell as well as to the higher authorities for the reddressal of the grievance of the complainant. The matter of the complainant has been thoroughly investigated and the concerned authorities found the error in the ATM system. After verifying the cash record, the cash was found ok consequently the amount of Rs.20,000/- has been credited to the account of the complainant on 19.05.2017. It is wrong that the answering ops have intentionally put off the matter with one pretext or the other. It is further averred that the ATM Machine is being run by mechanism system. As soon as the complainant has given the command for the withdrawal of the amount the system has shown the transaction successful. After receipt of the complaint of the complainant, the answering ops have lodged the complaint of the complainant immediately with the high ups. The Authorities have to examine the matter with many folds to detect the error which takes sufficient times. It has to count the cash on the day of transaction. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation as alleged because there has been no deficiency in the service on the part of the ops. The amount of the complainant has already been credited to his account. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit, Ex.C2 legal notice, Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C5 copy of statement of account, Ex.C6 copy of acknowledgment andEx.C7 acknowledgment. On the other hand, opposite parties have not tendered any document.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has stated at bar that after processing, they have paid Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on 19.5.2017 and this amount has been credited in the saving account of the complainant. Learned counsel for ops has also produced copy of the statement of account which has been placed on file. It also appears from the written statement that ops have categorically admitted that they have paid the amount to the complainant during the pendency of this complaint.
6. No doubt, this amount was debited on 23.9.2016 and thereafter complainant had been approaching the ops time and again to make payment of this amount which he did not get in cash from the ATM which was operated by him. Though after process and following of the procedure, the ops have paid this amount to the complainant but there is definitely a deficiency of service on the part of ops which makes the complainant entitled for some compensation and costs of the litigation. Moreover, the complainant has also lost the interest on the amount which was debited from his account on 23.9.2016 and credited same on 19.5.2017.
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay interest over this amount of Rs.20,000/- from 23.9.2016 to 19.5.2017 at the rate of 4% per annum i.e. saving rate of interest and we further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied by the ops jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.11.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
