Delhi

East Delhi

CC/438/2014

ARUN - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 438/14

 

1. Shri Arun Kharotia

S/o Shri D.C. Kharotia

R/o C-4/32, Gali No. 2

Acharya Niketan

Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi – 110 091                                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Manager

Bank of Baroda

Acharya Niketan Branch

Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi – 110 091

 

2. The Manager

Punjab National Bank

Balmiki Mohalla Branch

Patparganj, Delhi                                                                              ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 28.05.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 27.10.2016

Judgment Passed on: 28.11.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            The  complainant has filed the present complaint against the Manager, Bank of Baroda (OP-1) and the Manager, Punjab National Bank (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in service.

2.        Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had an account bearing no. 27520100001437 with OP-1.  On 4^th July 2013, around 9.15 a.m., the complainant visited the ATM ID 14151800 of OP-2 at Patparganj for withdrawing Rs. 10,000/-.  The transaction of the said amount was unsuccessful, but the same was debited from his account.  The complainant lodged complaint with the Manager of OP-1, where he was assured that Rs. 10,000/- will be credited back to his account within 10-12 days.  Despite several visits, his grievance was not addressed.  The complainant also filed complaint with Public Grievances Commission on 02.12.2013 and 24.02.2013, but no action was taken on his complaints.  The complainant has prayed for payment of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from 04.07.2013, miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 10,000/-.  The complainant had annexed application dated 17.07.2013 addressed to the Manager of OP-1, letter dated 20.08.2013 to the Manager of OP-1 and RTI to PIO of OP-2 dated 24.09.2013.  Reply to the complainant’s RTI by OP-2 dated 26.09.2013, RTI application to OP-1 dated 05.09.2013, complaints dated 02.12.2013 and 24.02.2013 to the Chairman, Public Grievances Commission.

3.        Notice of the complaint was served upon OPs, thereafter they filed their written statement.

            OP-1, in their WS, took the plea that as per the status report, it was stated that the “Customer received money from ATM”.  They also referred to Switch Reports and No Excess Cash Certificate. Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.  Reconciliation sheet from 02.07.2013 to 05.07.2013, transaction report and switch report were annexed with the WS. 

            In reply, filed by OP-2, allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice were denied and reliance was placed on JP log,  reconciliation sheet and transaction sheet.

4.        Rejoinder to the WS filed by OP-1 and OP-2, where the averments made in the complaint were reiterated. 

5.        Affidavits as evidence were filed by the complainant, OP-1 and  OP-2.  The complainant examined Shri Arun Kharotia, the complainant himself, who stated on oath the contents of the complaint and exhibited written representations dated 17.07.2013 and 20.08.2013 as Ex.CW1/1 and Ex.CW1/2, application under RTI Act to PIO, PNB (Ex.CW1/3), reply to RTI application dated 24.09.2013 (Ex.CW1/4), application dated 05.09.2013 (Ex.CW1/5), reply to application dated 05.10.2013 from OP-1 (Ex.CW1/6) and complaints to the Hon’ble Chairman of Public Grievances Commission (Ex.CW1/7 and Ex.CW1/8). 

            On behalf of OP-2, Shri Sanjay Dhawan was examined, who reiterated the contents of WS filed by OP-2 and placed Ex.OP2/A, Ex.OP2/B and Ex.OP2/C, which are switch transaction report, JP log with reconciliation report and transaction sheet respectively.  Power of attorney is exhibited as Ex.OP2/D.

6.        We have perused the material placed on record.  OP-2 has placed reliance on Ex.OP2/A, which reveals that transaction no. 4835 for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- was successful.  Transaction report, which is exhibited as Ex.OP2/B also gives credence to the same.  Even Ex.CW1/6, which is reply to the RTI, filed by the complainant with OP-1 shows that the complaint status report was “customer received money from ATM”. 

            As the complainant has received the payment as per the JP log and transaction report, which are auto generated, the probability of manipulation of the same are not possible.  Hence, we dismiss the complaint being without merits with no orders to cost.          

           Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

 

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President