Delhi

North East

CC/88/2015

Ms. Shashi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 88/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Ms. Shashi W/o Sh. Tej Pal R/o H.No. 260, Gali No.20, Rana Mohalla, Near Shiv Mandir, Saboli Village, Delhi-93		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Bank of Baroda, Mandoli Branch, Delhi-93 Through Branch Manager                    Canara Bank Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95 Through Branch Manager		Opposite Party No.1       Opposite Party No.2
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF ORDER:		10.03.2015 13.07.2022 05.08.2022

 

                 CORAM:

                 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

                 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

                       Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of  the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

       Case of the Complainant

1. The Facts of the complaint are that the Complainant is having a saving bank account bearing no. 06430100034881 in Bank of Baroda,  Branch Mandoli, Delhi-93. It is alleged by the Complainant that on 11.02.14 at 5:55 pm Complainant visited the Canara Bank, Dilshad Garden ATM for withdrawal of Rs. 8,000/-  and she was having sufficient amount in her account i.e Rs.10,386/-. It is stated by the Complainant that at 17:55 p.m. the Complainant used the ATM and got the receipt vide record no. 3868 showing the transaction declined by giving reason of insufficient balance. The Complainant stated that she again used the ATM machine at 17:57 for withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- with receipt record no. 3870 that transaction is also decline by giving reason of insufficient balance in her bank account. The Complainant stated that she used his ATM card third time for checking her balance in her account and she came to know that she had only Rs. 2,386/-in her bank account. The Complainant stated that She approached her bank and came to know that Rs. 8,000/- were deducted due to withdrawal of money from ATM on 11.02.14 while no amount was received by Complainant from the ATM machine.

The Complainant stated that she filed a written complaint to Opposite Party No-1 on 27.09.14 and also filed a written complaint to Opposite Party No-2 on 26.09.14. The Complainant also stated that She lodged a police complaint regarding cheating in P.S Harsh Vihar Delhi on 04.03.14. The Complainant also give reminders to Opposite Parties 31.10.14 but of no use. The submission is made by Complainant that Rs. 8,000/- is deducted from bank account but she did not receive the amount in question. The Complainant filed complaint against Opposite Party bank with reminders but no action was taken. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. It is prayed by Complainant that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.8,000/-, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses.

   Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. Opposite Party No-1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is alleged that complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable as the Complainant has concealed the material facts that she has already withdrawn Rs. 8,000/- from the ATM of Opposite Party No-1 at 17:52 on 11.02.14. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same be dismissed.

Opposite Party No-2 i.e. Canara Bank did not appear and it was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 29.01.2016.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein    she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

              Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

4. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No-1 has filed affidavit of Shri  Sunil kumar Dogra, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Mandoli,   Delhi. Affidavit of Shri Om Prakash was filed in evidence on behalf of  Opposite Party No-2.

 Arguments and conclusions

5. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.

              The case of the Complainant is that she is having saving bank account in the Bank of Opposite Party No-1 and she has also having an ATM card of the said bank. It is her case that on 11.02.14 at 17:55 she went to the ATM of Opposite Party No-2 for withdrawal of Rs. 8,000/- and the said transaction was declined on account of insufficient fund the case of the Complainant is that at that time she was having Rs. 10,386/- in her bank account. It is her case that despite having sufficient balance in her account, her transaction was declined due to insufficient balance.

On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No-1 is that the Complainant has concealed a material fact that on 11.02.14 at 17:52 the Complainant had withdrawn Rs. 8,000/- from the ATM of Opposite Party No-1. The Complainant has filed copy of her statement of account which also shows that the Complainant has withdrawn Rs. 8,000/- from the ATM of Opposite Party No-1 having ATM id no. 3509. The Complainant has not rebutted this fact. It is further important to note that the alleged transaction is dated 11.02.14 and the Complainant first time made the complaint to the Opposite Party No-1 on 27.09.14 and she made complaint to Opposite Party No-2 on 26.09.14. This shows that the Complainant did not take any step for more than seven months and no explanation has been given for such a long delay.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. So, the same is dismissed.  

 

 

 6.   Order announced on 05.08.2022

 Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President