Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/632/2016

Prem Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank Shahtalai - Opp.Party(s)

In person

20 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/632/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	10/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	20/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Prem Lal S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram, R/o H.No. 76, Indira Colony, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh.

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

[1]  CANARA Bank Shahtalai, Tehsil Janduata, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, through its Manager.

[2]  ICICI Bank, Bangalore Customer Care No.3366777

     ICICI Bank Ltd., Keb Road, Doddathogur, Bomasandra, Bangalore.

[3]  ICICI Bank, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, Branch Code No. 1638, SCO 9-10-11, through its Manager.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. S.K. SARDANA             MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties no.2 & 3	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant, who is working with Terrier Security (India) Service Pvt. Limited, as Security Guard, was having his Salary Account with the ICICI Bank, where his monthly salary used to be credited. It has been alleged that in the month of October, 2015, when the Complainant attempted to withdraw Rs.5,000/- from the aforesaid account at the ATM of Opposite Party No.1, no money was dispensed, but the ATM showed withdrawal of Rs.5,000/-. It has been alleged that subsequently, the Complainant got one message that his money was blocked in the machine. The Complainant immediately approached the Opposite Parties, by every possible means, to get his grievance redressed, but nothing positive could come out. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has stated that the Complainant has not mentioned the date, time and location of the ATM where he used his ATM/Debit Card to withdraw the alleged amount. Further, the Complainant neither mentioned his bank account details and ATM details in the Complaint nor did he make any Complaint to the answering Opposite Party regarding the alleged withdrawal from his account. Denying all other allegations and stating that it has nothing to do with any dispute of the Complainant relating to the ATM Card issued by Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have almost taken the identical pleas regarding non-providing of necessary information by the Complainant to identify the particular transaction, as were taken by the Opposite Party No.1 in its written version. It has been asserted that the alleged dispute of the Complainant, if any, was with the Canara Bank as he had carried out the transaction at their ATM. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.  

 

7.      The Complainant is raising a dispute in respect of an alleged ATM transaction, which has taken place in October, 2015, when an amount of Rs.5,000/- got blocked in the ATM of the Canara Bank (Opposite Party No.1). We can understand the predicament of an unsuspecting customer who lost his hard earned money and there is no body to come to his rescue. Nonetheless, the Complainant in the present Complaint has not even mentioned the date when the alleged transaction took place, the specific number of the ATM where it has taken place, the receipt which would show the transaction and the details of Complaint, if any, made to the Opposite Parties. Thus, we are afraid that on the basis of no specific evidence, we can grant any substantial relief to the Complainant. In these set of circumstances, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

8.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainants have failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th JULY, 2017                                                         Sd/-          

(SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                             Sd/-

(S.K. SARDANA)

       MEMBER