Delhi

North East

CC/325/2017

Priya Patwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 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. 325/17

In the matter of:

 

		Priya Patwa D/o Shri Narender Kumar R/o B-20, Gali No. 9, Panchal Vihar, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94.		Complainant
		Versus
	1       2	Bank Of Baroda Branch Plot No.2, Main Market, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094   HDFC Bank Branch-A-12, Sector-63, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		20.11.2017
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		07.01.2019
			DATE OF DECISION      :		07.01.2019

 

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief summary of the present complaint is that the complainant has a savings bank account bearing no. 50100192412963 with OP2. On 22.04.2017 around 6 pm the complainant had visited OP1 ATM to withdraw Rs. 8,500/- but the said machine did not dispense the cash though transaction slip of debit of the said sum from her account with OP1 was received from the said machine by the complainant. The complainant immediately complained about the same to OP1 on 23.04.2017 vide complaint no. 0517005639 and was assured that her money would be remitted back in her account within 7 days. On 02.05.2017, the complainant asked for CCTV footage from OP1 but OP1 did not provide her the same. The complainant complained about the said matter to OP2 also but was redirected to OP1. Thereafter, the complainant wrote several emails  to OPs on 04.05.2017, 05.05.2017, 09.05.2017 and 03.09.2017 questioning the status of the remittance and CCTV footage but OP1 only gave evasive replies thereto vide emails dated 06.05.2017 and 10.05.2017 to the effect of looking into the matter but the complainant never received her wrongly debited money back in her account. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs praying for issuance of directions against the OPs to remit the wrongfully debited sum of Rs. 8,500/- back in her account held with OP2 alongwith Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental, financial and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation charges.

The complainant has attached copy of bank statement of OP2 highlighting the disputed/wrongful debit of Rs. 8,500/- dated 22.04.2017 vide transaction no 6146 and series of emails/correspondence exchange between complainant and OP1 period of May 2017 and September 2017.

2. Notices were issued to OPs on 20.12.2017. OP2 failed to appear despite service effected on 10.01.2018 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.05.2018.
3. Written Statement was filled by OP1 in which it took the preliminary objection that the complainant has neither made any complaint to OP1 with regard to transaction in question nor any transaction slip has been filed to show that the complainant made the said transaction at the ATM of OP1. OP1 also further contended that neither the complainant nor OP2 made any communication with OP1 nor any information was sought by either of them with regard to the transaction in question. OP1 further raised an objection that the complainant has not disclosed any cause of action by way of any document to show that she made the transaction in question at the ATM of OP1. OP1 also denied having informed the complainant that its department was closed or that any complaint was lodged by the complainant before OP1 on 22.04.2018 and 23.04.2018 regarding wrongful debit or provision of CCTV footage. Lastly OP1 denied any deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint for want of any cause of action against itself made out by the complainant.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement was filled by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken by OP1 in which the complainant submitted that she had informed OP1 for getting transaction slip of Rs. 8,500/- but was asked by the officers of OP1 to come at a later date with assurance of remittance of the said sum within 7 days in her account. Complainant further submitted that she had contacted OP1 several time for CCTV footage on 22.04.2017 but OP1 never gave the same and therefore the clear case of deficiency of service was made out against OP1.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by both complainant and OP1 in reiteration of their respective claim/defence.
6. Written arguments were filed by both complainant as well as OP1 to reinforce and reemphasis their respective grievance/defence as taken in the complaint and written statement respectively.
7. We have perused the case file. On keen scrutiny of the documents placed on record by the complainant and OP1, it has been found that material documentary evidence which was crucial in adjudication of the case was transaction slip which was not placed on record by the complainant and when questioned by this Forum on the absence of the same, the complainant could not answer or explain the same and was evasive and vague about the absence of the same. Mere passbook entries of debit credit are not conclusive proof of wrongful debit or failed transaction as argued / alleged by the complainant qua the OP.  In the recent case law in Dinesh Malik vs State Bank of Patiala I (2016) CPJ 550 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission has dealt-with similar issue of account debited and money not disbursed by the ATM. In this case also a specific question was put to the complainant whether the ATM receipt obtained from the ATM of the Bank has been filed by the complainant or not and the same was admittedly not filed. The Hon’ble National Commission weighed the matter in terms of the documentary evidence filed by both the parties and clearly the documents placed on record by the bank out-weighed those filed by the complainant and on basis of such documents, the debited amount was not returned in the account of the petitioner therein.
8. In the present case, the complainant has not filed the basic ATM transaction slip for the disputed withdraw of Rs. 8,500/- which she has alleged to have been transacted through ATM of OP1. In absence of such a vital document, the complainant has failed to prove the culpability or any role whatsoever of OP1 and her contention therefore of the disputed transaction held with OP1 giving rise to the present complaint does not hold good.
9. We therefore, relying on the present case law find no illegality or material irregularity on the part of OP1 and find no merits in the present complaint of the complainant as we see no reason for dragging OP1 in the present complaint for want of conclusive documentary evidence. We do not find merit in the present complaint as the same is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed without cost.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

    (Announced on  07.01.2019)    

                                   

(N.K. Sharma)          President

(Sonica Mehrotra)            Member