The fact of the complaint case is that the complainant is a credit card holder of City Bank N.A. ( opposite party ) and her husband deposited cash of Rs. 15,000/- through an envelope under SER no. 006459/006460 at NFN Building, Salt Lake, Kolkata against her credit card in the said bank on 11/12/2012. On 13/12/2012 the bank intimated that bank had received Rs. 3,500/- against Rs. 15,000/- as claimed by the depositor, which was placed in one of the envelope out of 3 envelopes submitted. Fund deposited in other 2 envelopes were not reported against. The complainant then spoke to the customer care of the bank and recorded the issue under complaint serial no. 1875 on 03/01/2013 which was subsequently refused by the bank personnel regarding its existence. There was no trace of the above mentioned complaint no. 1875 and a new no. 4834 was allotted in place for resolving the issue of non-existence of Rs. 11,500/-. Complainant demanded CC TV footage of the ATM at the time deposition of envelope and also at the time of opening of the envelope with the operation of the counting process regarding its contents. But the bank authority failed to arrange for displaying of the videos of the CC TV footage or any record of the said footage. However City Bank informed the complainant that there was shortage of cash in the envelope by Rs. 11,500/-. Thereafter complainant tried to solve her problem through the process of mediation with the help of mediation wing of the C. A. Directorate, Govt. of West Bengal but failed. Finding no other alternative the complainant lodged this complaint for relief by seeking payment of Rs. 11,500/- and seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony.
O.p. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all material allegation raised by the complainant.
Complainant in her petition submitted that she had to suffer a lot for the unilateral propensity of the bank for their own gain against any lapse on their part. The op bank always extended their hand of non-cooperation in attending the mediation initiatives organized by Consumer Affairs Directorate for pre-litigation solution in the numbers of tripartite meeting and in each sitting the Bank representatives provided full non-cooperation in settling out the issue in question. Complainant was very much aggrieved with the treatment on the part of the o.p. personnel regarding the issue particularly when she had been a good customer of the Bank long since deserving better treatment.
Ld lawyer of the o.p. stated that CCTV footage of the ATM could not be obtained as the hard disk got corrupted without any fault of the o.p. It is also submitted that the officials of the o.p. duly verified the CCTV footage of the counting room recording the counting of contents in the envelope deposited by the complainant and it was observed that there was no tampering of the envelope and the amount deposited by the complainant as found upon opening was Rs.3,500/- and there was a deficit of Rs.11,500/-. Ld lawyer of the o.p. argued that CCTV footage are confidential and o.p. requested the complainant to knock the door of law enforcement agency. Demand of the complainant claiming exhorbitant amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation clearly shows malafide intention to take undue advantage of the benevolent provision of the consumer protection act. The complaint should be dismissed alone with cost.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the op
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it appears that the op is not willing to accept their deficiency in service. The mechanism of collection of cash has been designed by the Citi Bank N.A and the practices and procedures of collection of cash are also being operated by the Citi Bank N.A itself. Therefore, any flaw, if occurred there in the process is to be managed by the Citi Bank N.A with accepting the responsibility of occurrence of the flaw.
The practice of depositing cash in envelope by the depositor had been occurred according to the procedure framed by the Citi bank N.A. And the practice of subsequent actions i.e. opening of envelope and counting of the inner content by the Citibank personnel under the surveillance of CCTV had been solely operated by the bank and there no active role of the depositor. Therefore, the depositor would not be made responsible in any manner for the subsequent actions.Therefore, disappearance of cash of Rs.11,500/- out of the envelope deposited under the surveillance of CCTV is actually the disappearance of the mechanism, procedure and practices of management of cash collection by the citi Bank authority when no CCTV footage was disclosed by the bank for their own savior/defense. Therefore ,we are of the view that deficiency of service had been arisen on the part of the o.p and the complainant will be entitled to get compensation and cost for her relief.
Hence, ordered.
That the case no.529/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p.
The o.p. is directed to pay Rs.11,500/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-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.
