West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/13/19

Debdulal Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India and another - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/19
( Date of Filing : 14 Jan 2013 )
 
1. Debdulal Sarkar
Dr. Ambedkar Road, Nayapara, 24 Pgs(N)-743122.
24 Parganas(N)
WB
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Central Bank of India and another
Park Circus, Kolkata-700017.
Kolkata
WB
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sankar Nath Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 15 Jul 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

  1. Debdulal Sarkar,

            Sreepally, Palta

            Dr. Ambedkar Road, P.O. Bengal Anamel,

            P.S. Noyapara, Dist. 24 Pgs (N).                                                            _________ Complainant

 

____Versus____

 

  1. Central Bank of India,

            Park Circus (4 No. Bridge),

            Kolkata-17, P.S. Karaya.

 

  1. State Bank of India,

Branch – Dankuni,

Dankuni, Dist. Hooghly,

(Durgapur Expressway Crossing)                                         

Branch Code-1896, Pin-260255.                                                                         ________ Opposite Parties

 

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

                                        

Order No.   18    Dated   15/07/2015.

          The case of the complainant in short is that on 9.9.11 at 9-50 p.m. complainant went to ATM counter maintained by o.p. no.1 to withdraw Rs.5000/- since his son was then admitted in Institute of Child Health, Park Circus. But neither any slip nor any money dispensed from that ATM. Then complainant informed about the incident before o.p. no.2 being complaint ticket no.42922348809. O.p. no.2 informed that the transaction was successful. Complainant went to both the o.ps. for his grievance but in vain. Hence, the application praying for payment of Rs.5000/- along with compensation and cost.

            Both o.ps. appeared before this Forum by filing separate w/vs and denied all the material allegations.

            In their w/v o.p. no.1 stated that the concerned ATM card was successfully operated at their ATM counter. O.p. no.1 has stated that they could not produce the CCTV footage of the relevant moment since the incident took place more than two years ago. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.

            In their w/v o.p. no.2 admitted that complainant is a customer in respect of account no.30937899566 and the ATM card was issued to complainant against this account. After receiving the complaint letter they made an enquiry and came to know that on 9.9.11 at 22:04:23 hours a transaction was made for withdrawal of Rs.5000/- the said transaction was successful. They have informed it to the complainant through their letter dt.19.10.11. O.p. no.2 has stated that no transaction can be made without the ATM card and the secret PIN number. Hence, the case is case is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. it is admitted fact that complainant has a S.B. A/C with o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 has issued an ATM card in connection with the savings bank account. Complainant went to ATM counter operated by o.p. no.1 on 9.9.11 for withdrawal of Rs.5000/-. But neither the transaction slip nor Rs.5000/- was dispensed from that ATM. Both the o.ps. informed the complainant that the transaction was successful. They have not produced any CCTV footage for the alleged transaction in question. We are in the view that o.ps. had to examine the CCTV footage of the relevant time, when the withdrawal had taken place through ATM from complainant’s account. O.ps. receipt the complaint from the complainant in time, so, o.ps. should preserve the CCTV footage. The plea taken by o.p.1 that since the incident took place two years ago it is not possible for them to produce the CCTV footage, is not acceptable. It is not believable that only for Rs.5000/- complainant lodged a false claim. Complainant had to run from pillar to post for his grievance but both the o.ps. only issued a formal letter informing complainant that the transaction was successful. Neither of o.ps. took any positive initiative to solve the complainant’s grievance. So, we find deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, complainant is entitled to get relevant.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sankar Nath Das]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.