Delhi

North East

CC/12/2019

Anuradha Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jan 2020

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.  12/19

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Anuradha Yadav D/o Jagan Nath Yadav R/o:- House no. C3/240, Yamuna vihar, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	Canara Bank Through The Manager C4/84A, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053   Bank of India Through Its Manager B1/2, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Opposite Parties

 

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

23.01.2019 14.01.2020 14.01.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that she is an account holder of OP1 (Canara Bank) Delhi having savings bank account therewith bearing No.2925101001623 and was also issued an ATM cum Debit card bearing no. 4601332925037196 in her name by OP1. On 11.08.2018, the complainant had gone to the ATM of OP2 and at around 07:45 PM tried to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, however despite going through the standard process, the ATM machine of OP2 neither dispense any money nor any slip came out therefrom as there was no paper in the machine. However, the complainant received SMS at 7:45 pm on her mobile for the said debit.  The complainant, shocked at the mishap immediately called the customer care of OP1 at 7:50 PM on 11.08.2018, and was advised by its executive to lodge a complaint with OP1. The complainant approached OP1 on 13.08.2018 and submitted her complaint in writing which was duly received by OP1. OP1 assured the complainant to refund and asked her to approach it after 15 days. However, on expiry of 15 days period, when the complainant approached OP1 on 29.08.2018 and enquired about her complaint, she was told by Branch Manager of OP1 to visit Burari Branch from where her account has been transferred but Burari Branch advised her to go back to OP1, it being the home branch. Complainant visited OP2 as well whose manager has been insisting complainant to file complaint against OP1 and told her that they were unable to retrieve the CCTV footage of 11.08.2018 and therefore could not furnish the same. The complainant called Police on 100 got registered a complaint with PS Bhajanpura vide DD no 75B dated 04.10.2018 when complainant approached OP1 requesting for CCTV footage, its Branch Manager also showed inability to provide the same as the wrongful debit happened in the ATM of OP2 for which no video footage was provided. Subsequently, OP1 provided transactions details dated 10.09.2018 to the complainant with remarks dated 03.09.2018: “Resolution: Dispute Not Valid, Transaction is Successful”. The complainant again approached OP1 at its Nehru Place Delhi Branch and registered a complaint on 14.11.2018 Showing displeasure at inaction and no inquiry having been made by OP1. The complainant also lodged a written complaint with DCP, Seelampur, Delhi on 22.11.2018 in the form of RTI application no. 3257/2018  in this regard which was disposed of by the office of DCP on 14.12.2018 by attaching email communication dated 25.10.2018 to the effect that due to HDD having been changed at site, no footage was available. The complainant made several visits to OP1 between August 2018 to till early January 2019 but to no avail. Therefore as a last resort, the complainant alleging deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OPs in having failed to recover complainant’s money wrongfully debited and failure to provide CCTV footage, complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs praying for issuant of direction them to remit back Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from date of claim till realization in her account held with OP1 and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and  harassment pay Rs. 100 per day as per RBI guidelines and Rs. 20,000/- for cost of litigation.
2. Complainant has attached copy of passbook entry highlighting the disputed transaction dated 11.08.2018 alongwith copy of VISA debit card and copy of mobile message screenshot account debited for Rs. 10,000/-, copy of complaint dated 13.08.2018 lodged by complainant with OP1, copy of police complaint dated 04.10.2018 with PS Bhajanpura, Delhi, copy of complainant dated 14.11.2018 by complainant with OP1’s Nehru Place Branch Delhi, copy of RTI application 22.11.2018 by complainant to DCP Seelampur office, copy of Dispute Resolution dated 03.09.2018 under stamp and sealed dated 10.09.2018 of OP1 and copy of RTI response dated 14.12.2018 by DCP North East Delhi office attaching copy of email dated 25.10.2018 for CCTV footage and memory card having conversation between a colleague of complainant and Branch Manager of OP2 pertaining to inability to provide CCTV footage.
3. Notice was issued to OPs on 25.01.2019 and OP1 and OP2 were served on 13.02.2018.  Clerk for counsel of OP2 appeared on 07.03.2019 and received complete set of paper book for filing written statement but fail to file the same within the stipulated mandatory period of 45 days as provided under the Act and therefore its right to file the same was closed order dated 03.07.2019. OP1 failed to appear and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide the same order. OP2 also failed to appear subsequently and therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order date 11.10.2019.
4.  Complainant filed ex-parte evidence and written arguments on 23.08.2019 and 11.10.2019 respectively reiterating her grievance made in his complaint.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have carefully perused the case filed and material documents placed on record therewith.

The debit of Rs. 10,000/- is clearly established from the passbook entry of the complainant vide account held with OP1. The complainant had made sincere efforts by way of lodging prompt complaint with OP1 as well as with the concerned police station on directions of OP1. OP1 cannot shirk its responsibility and duty towards its customer but it failed to place on record any switch report, no excess cash certificate, JP Log / E- Journal which in such cases are mandatorily required and recognised/ admissible defence for the bank in disputed ATM transaction cases. No documentary evidence has been filed by OP1 in the present case in sheer act of callousness and irresponsibility towards the complainant. OP2 failed to put forth its defence of non provision / non availability of CCTV footage which also goes against it.

6. We therefore find both OPs deficient in service in having failed to address the problem of the complainant. We therefore find merit in the case of complainant and give her benefit of doubt in the absence of rebuttal by OPs due to their non appearance in the matter and accordingly direct the OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund / remit the wrongful debit of Rs. 10,000/- back to the account of the complainant held with OP1.

We further award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and harassment suffered by the complainant inclusive of litigation charges payable by OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to the complainant. Let the order be complied by both OPs within 30 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order.

7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.  File be consigned to record room.
9.  Announced on  14.01.2020

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member