Delhi

East Delhi

CC/961/2015

TARUN DEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENRA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       961/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution               19/12/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              20/04/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                       23/04/2018  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr Tarun Deep Singh, adult   

S/o Sh Harbans Singh    

R/o- B- 60/2, Gali no. 4  

New Govind Pura, Delhi 110051...………..……………….………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

1-Canara Bank Ltd.

33A-34B, Mahila Colony,

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 31

 

2- ICICI Bank,   

Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051..………………………………………….Opponents

 

Complainant …………………………………………….In person  

Opponent 1- …………………………………………….Mr Sunil Kumar Arya – AR

Opponent 2 Advocate…………..…………………..Adil Alvi 

 

Quorum             Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                            Dr P N Tiwari                Member                                                                                                   

                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant had saving bank account with OP1 bank vide account no. 19741010006370 (Ex CW1/1) and ATM debit card vide no. 5497591974060177. He wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs 10,000/- from OP2’s ATM on 08/09/2015, but could not get the amount so visited office of OP1 to inquire and passbook entry where he noted that a sum of Rs 10,000/- had been debited on the same date so he made complaint to OP1 office (Ex CW1/2, 2A). He received reply from OP1 that transaction was successful. He again gave representation to OP1 on 09/09/2015 for getting CCTV Clippings, but on 19/09/2015 received email rom OP2 that ATM had no CCTV clippings and also received email from OP2 on 19/09/2015 and 15/10/2015 (Ex CW1/4 & 4A) as transaction was successful based on their internal ATM record received through OP1 head office as triple zero (000).  Seeing callous attitude of OP1 &2, filed this complaint and claimed reversal of Rs 10,000/- with compensation Rs 30,000/- for harassment with Rs 25,000/- as litigation charges.

After receiving notices, OP1 appeared through their authorised representatives, but did not submit written statement despite of giving number of opportunities, so they were preceeded ExParte. OP2 appeared and submitted written statement and annexed all the details of transactions occurred from their ATM. OP2 also submitted that it was a successful transaction at 8.47.52 pm on 08/09/2015 through OP2 ATM ID-SPCND197 against card no. 5497591974060177 in account no. 19741010006370 under SEQ no. 618473 with response code triple zero (000) (Ex. OPW1/1).

OP2 also submitted additional internal record (Ex OPW1/2 & 2A) showing number of withdrawals by other card holders and all transactions were successful. OP2 also submitted EJ Roll and Switch Report (Ex OPW1/3) where complainant’s transaction was shown under EQNO.  8473 DATED 09/09/2015 as internal record. OP2 also stated that all the terms and conditions for using cards were known to complainant. He was making all false claims before this Forum, so complaint may be dismissed.

Complainant filed his rejoinder and denied replies submitted by OP2 and stated that his facts were correct and true as mentioned in his complaint. He also submitted his evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed that all his facts in the complaints were correct and true. He also submitted he had made complaint on very next day (09/09/2015) of his failed transaction of Rs 10,000/-but OP 2 refused to provide the CCTV clippings.   

OP2 filed their evidences on affidavit through Ms Akriti Mishra, Manager Legal with OP2 and reaffirmed on oath that there was no deficiency in their ATM or in record and there was no compliant was received by any other customers regarding any defect in the said ATM. It was stated that internal data was secret evidence which remains in the domain of their head quarter and could be made available only on demand by the authorities. Hence, there was no deficiency on their part and they may be exonerated from the array of party.  

Arguments were heard from the counsel of OP2 and complainant in person. File perused and order was reserved.

We have perused all the records and evidences on record and found that complainant demanded CCTV footage from OP2 whose ATM was used to withdraw the amount, but did not get CCTV footage whereas OP1 where his saving account was existing, was Ex parte though OP1 had made proper entry of credits and debits in his pass book. We have considered internal data submitted by OP2 as internal records of ATM as sufficient to see that transaction was successful.

We have also taken reference from the citation as “SBI, Chief Manager, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh vs Sansar Chand & others in RP 2889/2014 decided on 15/01/2015 where it was laid down that failure to provide CCTV footage to respondent/complainant by the appellant /opponent was deficient in rendering services to the complainant. The petitioner bank therefore was deficient in services. Hence, petitioner bank was directed to refund the amount Rs 10,000/-to the complainant and upheld the interest and compensation awarded by the Forum below.  

Hence, we are of the opinion that there is merit in this complaint and the same deserve to be allowed as under-

1. OP2 shall revert the amount Rs 10,000/- in the account of the complainant within 30 days from receiving the order.
2. We also award compensation of Rs 2000/- for mental harassment and agony with Rs 1000/-as litigation charges.
3. If amount is not paid in the stipulated time, complainant shall be entitled for 6% interest after lapse of stipulated time for compliance of order.
4. No liability on OP1 bank.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under regulation 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                       Mrs Harpreet Kaur   Member                                                                          

 

                                      

                                              Shri Sukhdev Singh President