Delhi

North East

CC/359/2016

RADHE LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2017

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. 359/16

 

In the matter of:

 

		Radhe Lal S/o Shri Bal Mukund R/o C-61/1, Gali No. 4, Mohan Puri Maujpur (North East), Delhi-53.		Complainant
		Versus
		Central Bank of India Ghonda Village P.O. Maujpur, Delhi-53. Through its Branch Manager.		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		26.12.2016
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		24.11.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		27.11.2017

 

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

Order by:- N.K.Sharma, President:-

 

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is account holder with the OP bank having savings bank account No. 1031613753  and having ATM card vide No. 5044371278018835 valid from 6/15 to 6/25. That on 14.12.2015 the complainant tried to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,000/- through ATM machine of OP situated at Ghonda, Delhi-53. However the complainant could not get the cash despite repeated attempts and therefore tried to withdraw cash from HDFC ATM machine Brihmpuri Road Delhi where the transaction was successful and he got Rs. 10,000/ but without receipt. On 21.12.2016 the complainant again withdraw a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in two time (Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-) from HDFC  ATM and after withdrawing  the said amount the complainant printed his passbook where he came to know that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been deduct from his account illegally. Thereafter complainant made a written complaint dated 4.3.16 to SHO, jafrabad Delhi and on 3.12.2016 to Branch Manager. The Branch manager gave assurance to return back the above said illegally deduct amount of Rs. 25,000/- but only 5,000/- returned back and Rs. 20,000/- has been not recovered in the account of the complainant. The complainant further stated that as per the transaction and passbook statement, an amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been debited on his account whereas the withdrawal limit is only Rs. 25,000/- in a day. The complainant has also stated that one OP Mr. Rahisuddin, employ of the OP destroyed the ATM card of the complainant with assurance to reissue the same after a week  and also give assurance to the complainant that his deducted amount will be credited in his account. However, till date no such amount has been credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant therefore alleges deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP as without any withdrawal made by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, the OP wrongly debited the complainant’s account with the said amount and never credited it back thereby causing financial loss, mental agony and tension and harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint after getting no response or resolution from the OP.

The complainant has annexed copy of his Adhar Card, copy of ATM card, photocopies of Bank passbook, copy of complaint to SHO jafrabad, Delhi dated 4.3.2016, copy of complaint to Branch Manager dated 3.12.2016  with the complaint.

 

2. Notice was served upon OP but despite service none has appeared on its behalf and vide order dated 10.3.2017, it was proceeded against Ex-parte.

 

3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant and written arguments were also filed by the complainant.

 

4. We have perused the case file. On keen scrutiny of the documents placed on record by the complainant, it has been found that material documentary evidence which was crucial in adjudication of the case were transaction slips and CCTC footage which were not placed on record by the complainant and when questioned by this Forum on the absence of the same, the complainant could not answer or explain the same and was evasive and vague about the absence of the same. Mere passbook entries of debit credit are not conclusive proof of wrongful debit or failed transaction as argued / alleged by the complainant qua the OP.  In the recent case law in Dinesh Malik vs State Bank of Patiala I (2016) CPJ 550 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission has dealt-with similar issue of account debited and money not disbursed by the ATM. In this case also a specific question was put to the complainant whether the ATM receipt obtained from the ATM of the Bank has been filed by the complainant or not and the same was admittedly not filed. The Hon’ble National Commission weighed the matter in terms of the documentary evidence filed by both the parties and clearly the documents placed on record by the bank out-weighed those filed by the complainant and on basis of such documents, the debited amount was not returned in the account of the petitioner therein. 

 

5. We therefore, relying on the present case law find no illegality or material irregularity on the part of OP and find no merits in the present complaint of the complainant as we see no reason why the OP would not have refunded or make good the loss alleged by the complainant in ATM transaction if it was a genuine case. We do not find OP deficient in service and the complaint of the complainant is devoid of merits and hereby dismissed without cost.

 

 

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

7. File be consigned to record room.

 

    (Announced on  27.11.2017)    

                                   

(N.K. Sharma)          President

(Sonica Mehrotra)            Member