Delhi

North East

CC/121/2018

Smt. Geeta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India & Others - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.121/18

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Geeta W/o Vinod Kumar R/o H.No. A-40, A Block, Loni Road, Gokulpur Village, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.             3.	Central Bank of India Through its Chairman/CEO/General Manager, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021   Central Bank of India Through its Zonal Manager, Plot No. 4, Block No. 54, Opp. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005   Central Bank of India Through its Branch Manager, Branch, Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110093	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

05.07.2018 03.05.2023 04.10.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had a saving account with the Opposite Party No. 3 bearing account no. 1045581870. Complainant stated that on 20.11.2017, Complainant went to the ATM of Opposite Party situated at Durgapuri, Shahdara for withdrawing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- by using her ATM card. Complainant stated that she inserted her card in ATM machine for withdrawing the said amount and after completion of the operation, no cash was dispensed by the ATM but a message was delivered to the complainant on her mobile phone for deducting the said amount. After that the Complainant immediately filed a written application for seeking the explanation and for supplying her CCTV footage. Thereafter, Opposite Party No. 3 assured the Complainant that in such cases, the amount would revert back to the account holder within 48 hours. Complainant stated that when the amount was not credited to the account of the Complainant then Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties but all in vain. Complainant stated that on 22.01.2018, Complainant made a written complaint to the Opposite Parties to provide the CCTV footage but all in vain. Complainant also made a complaint to the SHO, PS, Jyoti Nagar but no action was taken. Complainant stated that a reply was received as mentioned “Footage are unable to retrieve as ATM is closed and removed from site” and this reply shows the mala fide intention. On 05.05.2018, Complainant also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties and Opposite Party No. 3 gave a vague reply. Complainant has prayed for  Rs. 15,000/- which could not be dispensed by ATM machine, Rs. 15,000/- as interest of the declined amount. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their common written statement. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is stated that the transaction in question was successful. It is stated that the ATM Department, Central office Mumbai vide mail dated 28.12.2017, 29.12.2017 and 07.02.2018 had already confirmed that it was a successful transaction. The said fact was intimated to the Complainant on her registered mobile number. It is stated that the transaction was successful and there was a withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- by the Complainant or someone else to whom the Complainant had given her ATM card and its PIN. It is stated that CCTV footage could not be provided to the Complainant as the ATM was closed and removed from the spot and the same fact is clear from the mail dated 23.01.2018. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. To support their case Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of Shri Irshad Ahmed Khan, Senior Manager, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that she had inserted her ATM card in the ATM machine of the Opposite Party for withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/-. Her case is that no cash was dispensed by the ATM machine but she received a message regarding deduction of Rs. 15,000/- from her bank account. Her case is that she immediately informed the bank and demanded the CCTV footage. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that it was a successful transaction. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that CCTV footage could not be provided as the ATM was closed and had been removed from the spot. No cogent evidence has been filed by the Opposite Parties as to when the CCTV footage was demanded, when the ATM machine was closed and removed from the spot and where it was kept thereafter. In case, we assume that the ATM was closed and removed from the spot, then the question is that as to why the CCTV footage was not preserved. Nothing has come on record to show that CCTV was ever preserved or where it was kept after removal of the ATM machine from the spot. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no cogent explanation has come on record as to why the CCTV footage was not provided to the Complainant. Therefore, it is a case of deficiency of service. The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly or severally an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay jointly or severally an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest   @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.

 

7. Order announced on 04.10.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)