Delhi

North East

CC/305/2017

IQBAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 305/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Iqbal S/o Anwar Ahmed R/o L-218, Sunder Nagri Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	The Manager Bank of Baroda Branch- Sewa Dham Road, Mandoli Delhi-110093	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

12.10.2017 12.02.2019 12.02.2019

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts germane to the present complaint as culled out by the complainant are that he has savings account bearing no 06430100062984 with OP bank at Mandoli Branch, Delhi.  On 11.06.2017 at about 8 PM, the complainant had visited the OP ATM located at Mandoli to withdraw Rs. 9,000/- but the ATM machine flashed ‘insufficient balance’ in his account. On getting bank details, the complainant discovered that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has already been withdrawn by someone earlier which the complainant was unaware of. He only had information that on the given date, he had a balance of  Rs. 20,056.95/- in his account held with OP and the ATM card was used by him alone and not by his family member. The complainant lodged a written complaint with the Branch Manager of OP on 12.06.2017 for non disbursal of amount and unlawful withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- from his account and also lodged a police complaint on 17.06.2017 with P.S. Harsh Vihar, Delhi regarding the said grievance lodged with OP but no action taken by OP on the same to which the concerned P.S. advised the complainant to seek redressal in appropriate court. The complainant approached the Mediation and Conciliation Centre which marked the case to Mediation Centre Nand Nagri where OP never appeared and therefore as a last resort, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint praying for issuance of directions to OP to remit Rs. 15,000/- wrongly debited / deducted from his account held with OP bank and compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Complainant has attached copy of passbook entry highlighting the alleged wrongful debit / disputed deduction of Rs. 15,000/- on 11.06.2017 through ATM withdrawal from his account no. 06430100062984, alongwith mobile alert message of the said withdrawal copy of transaction slip dated 11.06.2017 at 20.06 hrs showing balance of Rs. 5,056.95/- in complainant’s account, a copy of account ledger inquiry showing ATM withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- through ATM card number ending 1121 issued by OP, copy of complaint dated 12.06.2017 lodged by complainant with Bank Manager OP and online complaint lodged by complainant with OP vide complaint ID no 201706125991, copy of complaint dated 17.06.2017 lodged with P.S. Harsh Vihar, Delhi, with acknowledgment of registration of same on complainant’s mobile vide reference no 81730551700648, copy of complaint dated 29.06.2017 lodged by complainant with Mediation Centre Nand Nagri, Delhi and closure report by Mediation Centre Nand Nagri dated 12.10.2017.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 25.10.2017 which entered appearance on 24.11.2017 and was handed over complete set of paper book for filing written statement. However, the OP failed to file written statement within the statutory mandatory period of 45 days as prescribed under section 13 (2) of CPA and therefore its right to defence was closed vide order dated 12.01.2018. The OP filed an application for setting aside the said order which was dismissed as non maintainable since the Forum does not have power to review its own order. The OP therefore was granted liberty to seek redressal before appropriate Commission. The OP, in proceedings held before this Forum on 30.05.2018 apprised that vide order dated 18.05.2018, in RP no. 53/18 passed by Hon’ble SCDRC, Hon’ble SCDRC reinstated its defence in the proceedings before this Forum by setting aside order dated 12.01.2018 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant by OP. The OP on the said date paid the cost to the complainant vide DD and filed its written statement in which it took the preliminary defence that as per the Electronic Journal, the transaction done by the complainant on 11.06.2017 at 20:01 hrs was successful and amount of Rs. 15,000/- was disbursed vide the said transaction. The OP admitted the factum of complainant having savings account and having accessed the debit card on 11.06.2017. The OP further admitted the factum of complainant lodging a complaint with it on 17.06.2017 but denied any deficiency of service or liability to pay any amount to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP has attached copy of EJ Report showing complainant’s action remarks ‘successful transaction’.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by OP was filed by complainant in which he rebutted the defence taken by the OP of the disputed transaction

having been alleged as successful and reiterated his grievance against the OP and relief sought in the complaint.

4. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating his grievance in the complaint in reassertion of his grievance against unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- from his account held with OP by some unknown person and non redressal of his complaint by OP.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP reiterating its defence and exhibited the Electronic Journal as Exhibit RW1/1 showing sequence no 5018 through card no ending 1121 for cash withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- duly stamped by OP.
6. Written argument were filed by complainant in which he reiterated his grievance of wrongful withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- as also argued that OP never provided CCTV footage of suspected transaction despite RBI guidelines. Complainant further argued that as per RBI guidelines bank should have completed enquiry within 7 working days of the complaint or should have credited the customer’s account with disputed transaction amount but failed to do either despite the case being that of Zero Liability of customer.
7. OP filed its written arguments reiterating its defence taken in written statement and evidence relying upon the Electronic Journal Report showing successful transaction and argued that Complainant deliberately did not file the transaction slip for the disputed transaction dated 11.06.2017 at 20:01 hrs which could have substantiated his using his card and withdrawing money. The OP placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Dinesh Malik Vs  State Bank of Patiala, Satya Narayan Pandey Vs SBI and SBI Vs K.K. Bhalla to buttress his defence of authenticity / final proof of  electronic journal file, adverse inference for non filing of transaction slip issued by ATM and non availability of CCTV footage not implying that money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using ATM card and PIN no. OP has placed on record all the said judgments relied upon.   
8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have applied out judicial mind after thorough perusal of documentary evidence placed on record before us.

From the passbook entries filed by the complainant with respect to the account held by her with OP bank, it is clear that amount of Rs. 15,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant on 11.06.2017. The same has not been disputed by OP either as stands corroborated by the JP Log filed by OP. However, the OP didn’t provide the CCTV Footage of its ATM to the complainant to prove whether the complainant had withdrawn the above said money from the ATM.We have screened the JP Log which shows that the successful withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- was made vide sequence no 5108 on 11.06.2017 through debit card number 65215150xxxx1121 and not ‘failed’. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Dinesh Malik V/s State bank of Patiala I (2016) CPJ 550 (NC) had specifically put question to petitioner whether the ATM receipt obtained from the ATM of respondent bank has been filed by petitioner or not to which the counsel for petitioner replied in the negative and the counsel for the bank had argued that the journal printer in the ATM is the final proof of transaction and is accepted worldwide by all banks and cannot be manipulated by any person in any manner whatsoever and the petitioner had not submitted any proof that the money was not disbursed by the Bank ATM. The Hon’ble NCDRC had observed that in view of fact that the petitioner has not filed basic ATM receipt for withdrawal or any other proof in support of his claim to dispute the transaction, we find no force in the assertion of the petitioner and had upheld the order of the order of Hon’ble State Commissioner of Panchkula Haryana in favour of the bank. Therefore, on basis on this judgment, this issue is decided against the complainant in the present case since the complainant didn’t file the transaction slip on grounds of non receipt of the same with respect to disputed transaction / wrongful debit.

The Hon’ble NCDRC in Satya Narayan Pandey Vs SBI IV (2017) CPJ 199 (NC) held in a similar case of disputed / wrongful debit that in case where the transaction have been found successful as per electronic general file, generally ATM cards and ATM machines are safe and if the transaction is not successful it is shown on the screen of the ATM as well as on the slip issued by the ATM and therefore in view of the documents filed by the bank showing transaction was successful, the Hon’ble NCDRC has upheld the judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC Chattisgarh in favour of the bank. Therefore this issue is also decided against the complainant on the basis of JP Log filed by OP which is a computer generated untampered with document. As far as the question of the CCTV footage or lack of it concerned, the issue has been clearly settled by Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of SBI Vs K.K Bhalla (relied upon by the OP during course of oral arguments) in which the Hon’ble NCDRC held that non provision of CCTV footage does not mean that money could be withdrawn fraudulently without using ATM card or pin number. In view of elaborate procedure evolved by banks to ensure that no money can be withdrawn without ATM card and PIN number, there are high chances and increased possibilities / probabilities that these withdrawals occurred either because the ATM card or the PIN number was compromised or fell in wrong hands. Hence, the complainant cannot take shelter of non provision of CCTV Footage to dispute the transactions in the present case also.

9. Therefore, in light of the settled propositions of law regarding documentation filed by OP which conclusively establish transactions as successful beyond reasonable doubt and no mandatory emphasis/ requirement on CCTV Footage in such cases,  we are of the considered view that the complainant could not establish that the withdrawal was not successful or failed as alleged by him. 
10.  We therefore, do not find any merits in the present complaint as regards to deficiency of service alleged against OP by the complainant and therefore complaint is dismissed with no cost to either side.    
11.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12.  File be consigned to record room.
13.  Announced on  12.02.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member