1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he is a saving bank account holder under the O.P. – Bank vide account no. 463702010003394 with ATM facility.  That due to urgency, he withdrew an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the ATM counter and received the same.  It is alleged that thereafter he tried to withdraw further amount of Rs. 10,000/- but did not receive the same but the said amount was deducted from his account, but while he again withdrew further amount of Rs. 10,000/- and received the same from the ATM machine and the deducted amount of Rs. 10,000/- was recredited in his account on 02.01.2015 i.e. four days after his several approaches made to the O.P.No.1.Further it is alleged that on 28.05.2016 he withdrew an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and received the same.But on the same time, again he tried to withdraw further amount of Rs. 10,000/- but the same could not disbursed to him but deducted from his account and again he withdraw an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively and received the same, but the missing amount of Rs. 10,000/- was recredited into his account after four days i.e. on 01.06.2015 after several approaches and complaint to O.P.No.1.Further it is alleged that due to such missing of amount from the account, being a Lawyer, he could not concentrate in the legal professions and with other allegations alleging deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to set right the ATM machines and recredit the missing amount to the customers immediately and to pay him Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from the Fora, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Ld. Counsel but did not choose to file their counter versions inspite of several opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice, however, they have filed some document in support of submissions made at the time of hearing.
    
3. The O.P. No. 3 appeared in this case and filed their counter denying the allegations of complainant have contended that the complainant is not consumer under them as per Section 2 (1)(d) and no service was rendered by them as per Section 2(1)(o) of the Act and since there is no cause of action occurred against them, as such with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. Heard from the parties present and perused the case records and material documents available in the case record.
    
5. In the present case, O.P. No. 1 & 2 have not filed any counter version to make any contradiction against the allegations of the Complainant, as such the allegations of complainant is remained unchallenged to the effect that on two occasions the deposited amount of Rs. 10,000/- each have been deducted without any disbursement to him through the ATM counter and the said amounts have been recredited into his account after gape of 4 days after several approaches made to the O.P. No. 1 & 2.  The allegations of complainant is that due to such illegal deduction and automatic recredit of said amounts, he was put into heavy mental pressure for which being a lawyer he could not perform his duties properly and lost his income and faith of his clients and the O.Ps have never challenged the said versions of complainant, as such it is also established that due to such illegal deduction of amounts for 4 days respectively, definitely complainant suffered from mental pressure.
    
6. At the time of hearing, though the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have not filed their counter version, but argued on the basis of clause 2(a) of the decisions taken by Reserve Bank of India vide their letter no. RBI/2010/11/547 dated 27.05.2011, which is issued under Section 18 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (Act 51 of 2007) that as per such provision since there is no loss occurred to the complainant in any manner and the deducted amount of Rs. 10,000/- each on two times have been recredited into the account of complainant within four days, as such they denied their liability.  Whereas the complainant has filed the provisions as laid down in Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (51 of 2007) and argued that since the O.P. No. 1 & 2 has not explained him about the procedure of the recredit of deducted amount from ATM counter nor they have handed over any document to that effect to him, otherwise he would not have faced any mental pressure, as such he is entitled for compensation.
    
7. We have gone through the documents filed by the parties and pointed out the Section 21(1) which emphasizes that

Section 21(1) à Every system provider shall disclose to the existing or potential system participants, the terms and conditions including the charges and the limitations of the liability under the payment system, supply them with copies of the rules and regulations governing the operation of the payment system, netting arrangements and other relevant documents.

In regard to the above provisions, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have not made any contradiction in support of their submissions.  As such the allegations of complainant regarding that the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have never informed or intimated or handed over him any documents, is remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein it is held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”    

8. Considering the above verdicts and the circumstances of the case, we feel, due to non supply of proper information to the complainant in reference to the provisions of The Payment And Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (51 of 2007), the O.P. No.1 & 2 has proved deficiency in service on their part, and the complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment and non recredit of deducted amount with immediate effect compelled the complainant to file this case by incurring some expenditures, which is also not permissible as per law. Hence this order. 

ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is allowed in part and the O.P. No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally, are directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant, within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment. 

Since no specific allegations are made against the O.P. No. 3, no order against them.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3^rd day of January, 2019.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.