Delhi

North East

CC/32/2014

Ravinder parsad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 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.32/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Ravinder Prasad R/o X-9/56, Street No. 10A Braham Puri, Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1	The Manager Central Bank of India Ghonda, Delhi-110053
2	The Manager Axis Bank, Yamuna Vihar, Service Road, Delhi-110053.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	31.01.2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	29.05.2017

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

ORDER

1.        As per complaint complainant is an Account Holder of OP1 vide No. 1031519829 and holder of ATM card bearing      No. 5044371278001161, issued thereon. On 23.12.2012 complainant inserted his ATM card, in ATM machine of OP2, two times, to withdraw Rs. 20,000/- at 13:55 but could not receive payment, but the slip showing the transaction invalid with instructions to contact the OP. On 24-12-2012 on visit to OP1 he was told that Rs. 15,000/- has already been withdrawn out of his account, by way of two transactions of Rs. 10,000/- and 5,000/- respectively. Complainant lodged a complaint to OP1 the same day, registered as No. 983288. Thereafter even after so many visits and assurances, OPs did not refund the amount. As complained, details of passbook entries show that Rs. 15,000/- were not withdrawn by him. And as there was no electricity in the ATM it was not working hence this transaction did not take place.  After findings no response for months complainant sent a legal notice on  19-3-2013 and     19-10-2013 but there was no reply from OPs.  Complainant has prayed for grant of directions to OPs to pay, to the complainant, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- illegally withdrawn from his account with interest thereon and Rs. 15,000/- compensation with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

2.         After notice both the OPs filed their respective replies. In its reply OP1 states that transaction in question was done on the ATM machine belonging to OP2. Thus there is no deficiency on its part. Complainant has very well withdrawn Rs. 15,000/-. Fact of withdrawal Rs. 20,000/-alleged is an afterthought by the complainant. Besides the complaint in question involves several factual and legal issues which cannot be adjudicated upon unless there is complete trial, examination and cross examination of witnesses. All this is possible by a Civil Court only and not in this forum. Thus this forum has no jurisdiction.  

3.         OP2 by filing its reply alleges that complainant has suppressed material facts and has not come with clean hands, before this forum. He is also not a consumer of OP2. Thus there is no privity of contract between complainant and it. On merits,  OP2 states that amounts of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- have very well been withdrawn by the complainant vide transaction Nos 6563 and 6562 respectively. Record shows that the said amounts have successfully been dispensed with by ATM machine.  As per procedure OP1 must have lodged a complaint to OP2.   The original debit card and confidential PIN being in exclusive possession of complainant himself none other than himself could withdraw the amount. Even if it is presumed that complainant has not used the said card, either any of his family members or some close relation might have access to original debit card and confidential PIN for which OP2 is not responsible. Thus there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on OP2’s part. Hence treating the complaint as frivolous and vexatious it may be dismissed.

4.         In rejoinder to reply of OP1 complainant denying withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- states that as per record of transactions placed on record by OP2 it has clearly been stated that transaction numbers 6559, 6560 and 6561 were declined every time with instructions to contact the bank. Withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- by way of two transactions immediately thereafter is neither justified not possible for the reason that as per OP2’s own submission after three unsuccessful attempts the card becomes blocked by ATM machine itself for at least 24 hours. OP1 has given no details of the steps they took after receiving complaint by OP1.  Disputed transaction is of the period when there was no electricity till 8:40 PM thus this transaction is not justified. Reiterating all the contents of his complaint complainant has prayed for the grant of complaint.

5.         In rejoinder to reply of OP2 complainant has asserted that he is very much consumer of OP2 because as per its own reply it is an associate bank of OP1 otherwise it could neither entertain the ATM card issued by OP1 nor deliver withdrawal slip  or prepare EJ report, cash balancing report etc. As per OP2’s own record transaction numbers 6559, 6560 and 6561 were shown declined with the instructions to contact bank. Now in view of OP2’s own version of automatic blocking of ATM for 24 hours after these unsuccessful transactions, how Rs. 15,000/- could be withdrawn immediately thereafter.   Thus OP2 being very much guilty for deficiency in service there is sufficient ground to entitle complainant for the reliefs prayed for.

6.         All the parties filed their respective affidavits of evidence and written arguments alongwith their respective documents.

7.         Heard and perused the record.               

8.         Slips as well as EJ filed confirms that transaction no 6559, 6560 and 6551 allegedly made by the complainant at 13:55 on 23.12.2012 in the ATM of OP2 were not successful. As per complaint as the transaction was shown declined with the instruction to contact the bank, the next day i.e. 24.12.2012 complainant approached OP1- the account maintaining branch, where after getting the knowledge of withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- he lodged a complaint, under due receipt. The complaint dated 25.02.2013 to OP1 specifically states that the complainant tried to withdraw Rs. 20,000/- which was not received but later on he found that Rs. 15,000/- have been deducted out of his account. EJ report filed by OP show that after declining the withdrawal of the amounts vide record no. 6559, 6560 and nill, two transactions vide record no 6562 and 6563 for the amounts of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively are shown successful through the ATM card of the complainant itself. Record No. 6559 and 6560 specifically show transaction declined contact bank and 3^rd transaction vide record no nill show transaction declined invalid transaction or account. We also find a request letter dated 25.2.2013 to OP1 for supply of CCTV footage of transaction in dispute duly received by OP1 the same day. Thereafter we also find another complaint to the in-charge police station, jafrabad, Delhi thereby requesting for helping him to get the video recording of particular transactions. Complaint dated 25.2.2013 aforesaid also show that complainant in this complaint states that after the unsuccessful transactions he found that some unknown person swaped his card into ATM machine of OP2 and withdrew Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- by way of two transactions. That is why he wanted to see the video recording of the said transactions.          

9.         On the basis of aforesaid discussions admittedly the three transactions vide no 6559, 6560 and 6561 were declined and complainant could not receive the amount sought for. It is also an admitted fact that Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- were also withdrawn by way of two transactions immediately after the transactions made by the complainant. Thus there is no dispute with respect to non withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- and withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/-. The only dispute is with respect to the person who has withdrawn Rs. 15,000/-. To determine the same CCTV footage is the material document which complainant was not so provided even after his request to OP1 as well as complaint to the police for providing the same. Not only this OPs have also not placed the same on record giving excuse that it is preserved only upto 90 days which has since expired. We find no explanation of not providing the CCTV footage while request of complainant was within 90 days vide letter dated 25.2.2013 for the same.  

10.      Going through the Rules we find that as per RBI circular no NPCI/2012-13/NES/2737 dated March 26, 2013 it NPCI advised its member banks to make a provision in the customer complaint form for the complainant to raise a request for CCTV footage / camera images if the customer desire at the time of submission of the form to the issuing bank. We find no such complaint form but OP1 has received the complaint on the plain paper. Even otherwise though late but complainant applied for supply of CCTV footage which was not so supplied.

11.      On the basis of above such findings we find that there was a fraud committed by any 3^rd person on the account of complainant and even after request of complainant CCTV footage was not provided to the complainant to verify the actual person who has withdrawn this amount. Thus not only it is case of fraud but also there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs for which as per settle law OPs are liable to compensate.

12.      Thus holding both the OPs guilty for the same we direct them to pay to the complainant, jointly and severally:-

(i) Amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only); and

(ii) Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant and litigation cost.

Order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy hereof. Failing which Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of debit entry of this amount in complainant’s account till final compliance of this order.      

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

14.      File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 29.05.2017)

           

(N.K. Sharma)    President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi)         Member