Delhi

East Delhi

CC/754/2015

BALRAJ SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  754/15

 

Shri Balraj Singh

S/o Late Shri Ram Kewal Singh

R/o H. No. 286, Street No. 5

New West Kanti Nagar, Delhi –51                                ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Bank of Baroda

Sharkarpur Branch

U-198, Vikas Marg, Delhi –92                                          …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 29.09.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 08.02.2018

Judgement Passed on: 08.02.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

           

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Balraj Singh against Bank of Baroda (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Balraj Singh was having saving bank account no. 16520100009291 with Bank of Baroda (OP).  On 25.05.2015 at about 10.35 a.m., he went to ATM no. FPN349501 & ATM341/9 of Central Bank of India, Main Kanti Nagar, Delhi–51, where no amount was withdrawn.  Thereafter, he went to Bank of Baroda, ATM No. IFDSRR03 at Bhola Nath Nagar and withdrew an amount of Rs. 1,500/-, but did not get the slip.  Then, he went to ICICI ATM in Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi – 10 034 to check the balance, where the ATM showed less balance of Rs. 10,000/-.  He went to Bank of Baroda, Bhola Nath Nagar ATM where the balance checked slip showed less balance of Rs. 10,000/-. 

            He has further stated that he went to Bank of Baroda, where he was having his saving account and made a complaint on 25.05.2015 vide complaint no. 0215052513023720.  He was advised by the bank personnel to lodge a police complaint which he did on 13.06.2015.  He also lodged a complaint with Cyber Cell, Mandir Marg vide no. C-3065/DCP/EOW dated 17.06.2015.  Thus, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in question; Rs. 5,000/- towards harassment and Rs. 4,000/- towards litigation charges.

 

3.         In reply of Bank of Baroda, they have stated that transaction made by the complainant on the ATM machine of Bank of Baroda was successful, where he withdrew Rs. 1,500/-.  He made a transaction for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the ATM machine of Central Bank of India, where no amount came out, but was debited.  Thus, they have stated that Central Bank of India was a necessary party and the present complaint was not maintainable against them.  They have denied other facts also.   

 

4.         In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of complaint to SHO, Krishna Nagar dated 13.06.2015 (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of complaint to Bank of Baroda dated 25.05.2015 (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of reply of EOW (Ex.CW-1/3) and receipt of ATM (Ex.CW-1/4). 

            In defence, OP have examined Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the Written Statements.  He has also got exhibited documents such as statement of account of the complainant (Ex.OP-A/1) and copies of emails and reminder emails (Ex.OP-A/2 and A/3).   

 

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record as the complainant did not appear to argue.  The only argument which has been advanced on behalf of OP has been that the transaction made by the complainant at the ATM of Central Bank of India was not successful as stated by him and Central Bank of India has not been made as a party. 

            From perusal of the documents placed on record, it is noticed that the transaction to which the complainant have alleged in his complaint as well as in his testimony pertains to the ATM machine of Central Bank of India.  Since Central Bank of India has not been made as a party, Bank of Baroda cannot be said to be deficient in their service, therefore, no deficiency of Bank of Baroda is made out. 

            When there was no deficiency on the part of OP, no case of the complainant has been made out.  Therefore, his complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.   There is no order as 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