BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.42/12.
Date of instt.: 23.01.2012.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Naresh s/o Sh. Baij Nath, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Central Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Timber Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
2. A.T.M. Cell through its Manager/Incharge, Central Office, Chander Mukhi Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. It is alleged that on 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. It is further alleged that on 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. It is further alleged that the act of non-closing the transactions of aforesaid account of complainant through said A.T.M. card by the Ops and non-taking the appropriate steps for stopping the misuse of said A.T.M. card by some unknown person is wrong, illegal and against the norms of natural justice which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the answering Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. If the card was lost by the complainant on 25.10.2011, he would have informed the respondent bank immediately which was not done by him. Had he informed the bank on 25.10.2011, the transactions done on 03.11.2011 would have been avoided. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. On 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. On 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that the Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. The complainant has failed to produce any document which could prove that the complainant had given the intimation regarding the closing of ATM on 25.10.2011 rather the complainant moved an application on 03.11.2011 (Ex.PC) regarding the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- from his account. So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.42/12.
Date of instt.: 23.01.2012.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Naresh s/o Sh. Baij Nath, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Central Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Timber Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
2. A.T.M. Cell through its Manager/Incharge, Central Office, Chander Mukhi Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. It is alleged that on 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. It is further alleged that on 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. It is further alleged that the act of non-closing the transactions of aforesaid account of complainant through said A.T.M. card by the Ops and non-taking the appropriate steps for stopping the misuse of said A.T.M. card by some unknown person is wrong, illegal and against the norms of natural justice which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the answering Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. If the card was lost by the complainant on 25.10.2011, he would have informed the respondent bank immediately which was not done by him. Had he informed the bank on 25.10.2011, the transactions done on 03.11.2011 would have been avoided. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. On 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. On 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that the Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. The complainant has failed to produce any document which could prove that the complainant had given the intimation regarding the closing of ATM on 25.10.2011 rather the complainant moved an application on 03.11.2011 (Ex.PC) regarding the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- from his account. So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.42/12.
Date of instt.: 23.01.2012.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Naresh s/o Sh. Baij Nath, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Central Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Timber Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
2. A.T.M. Cell through its Manager/Incharge, Central Office, Chander Mukhi Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. It is alleged that on 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. It is further alleged that on 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. It is further alleged that the act of non-closing the transactions of aforesaid account of complainant through said A.T.M. card by the Ops and non-taking the appropriate steps for stopping the misuse of said A.T.M. card by some unknown person is wrong, illegal and against the norms of natural justice which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the answering Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. If the card was lost by the complainant on 25.10.2011, he would have informed the respondent bank immediately which was not done by him. Had he informed the bank on 25.10.2011, the transactions done on 03.11.2011 would have been avoided. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. On 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. On 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that the Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. The complainant has failed to produce any document which could prove that the complainant had given the intimation regarding the closing of ATM on 25.10.2011 rather the complainant moved an application on 03.11.2011 (Ex.PC) regarding the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- from his account. So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.42/12.
Date of instt.: 23.01.2012.
Date of Decision: 27.03.2015.
Naresh s/o Sh. Baij Nath, R/o Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Central Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Timber Market, Kaithal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
2. A.T.M. Cell through its Manager/Incharge, Central Office, Chander Mukhi Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. It is alleged that on 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. It is further alleged that on 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. It is further alleged that the act of non-closing the transactions of aforesaid account of complainant through said A.T.M. card by the Ops and non-taking the appropriate steps for stopping the misuse of said A.T.M. card by some unknown person is wrong, illegal and against the norms of natural justice which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the answering Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. If the card was lost by the complainant on 25.10.2011, he would have informed the respondent bank immediately which was not done by him. Had he informed the bank on 25.10.2011, the transactions done on 03.11.2011 would have been avoided. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant opened a saving bank account bearing No.1500873785 with the Op No.1 and also availed the facility of A.T.M. card. On 25.10.2011, unfortunately the said A.T.M. card of complainant has lost somewhere and the complainant immediately moved an application for stopping the transaction from the above-said account of complainant and issuance of a new A.T.M. card in favour of complainant. On 03.11.2011, it has come to the knowledge of complainant that somebody has made the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- in two times thereby withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that the Ops received intimation about the loss of alleged ATM card for the first time only on 03.11.2011 and immediate action was taken by the bank to stop the transactions to the ATM but by that time, the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- was made. The complainant has failed to produce any document which could prove that the complainant had given the intimation regarding the closing of ATM on 25.10.2011 rather the complainant moved an application on 03.11.2011 (Ex.PC) regarding the withdrawal of Rs.3500/- from his account. So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.27.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
