Delhi

North East

CC/30/2020

Shir Mukhtiar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 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.30/20

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Mukhtar Singh, S/o Late Shri Budha Ram, R/o-1891-DDA Flats, G.T.B Enclave Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Corporation Bank, NVM Branch, G.T.B Enclave, Delhi 110093   Manager HDFC Bank Head Office: M-36, Connaught Circus Opposite Super Bazar Block-G, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 Also At: Head Quarter Bank House Dr. Annie Besant Road Shiv Sagar Estate Worli Mumbai Maharasthtra 400018	Opposite Parties

 

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

20.05.2020 27.07.2023 22.09.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had a joint account along with her daughter in the bank of Opposite Party No. 1 bearing account no. 520101018256402. Complainant stated that on 05.05.2018, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was withdrawn from his account through three transactions by using the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that this incident came to notice of the Complainant on 01.03.2019, when his passbook was printed. Thereafter, Complainant told the said incident to the staff of Opposite Party No. 1 and they suggest lodging the complaint with the Police. Complainant stated that when he approached the police then official of Police told to do the complaint first with the Opposite Party No. 1. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Manager of Opposite Party No. 1 and he suggested to contact the concerned officer dealing with the ATM but he was not available at that time. Complainant stated on 27.06.2019, Complainant lodged a written complaint with the Opposite Party No. 1 and Complainant also sent reminders dated 23.07.2019 and 13.08.2019 to the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant stated that on 23.08.2019 Opposite Party No. 1 gave reply and told that the fraud was made from the ATM of the Opposite Party No. 2 and two emails were sent by the FTS Reconciliation Team to the Opposite Party No. 2 but they did not give any reply. Complainant stated that on 28.08.2019, Complainant lodged a complaint with the SHO Police Station, G.T.B Enclave, Delhi. It is his case that on 06.09.2019, Complainant also made a complaint to the Ombudsman of the Reserve Bank of India Delhi who has rejected the request of the Complainant on 20.01.2020. Complainant stated that as per prescribed Form of complaint of the R.B.I, the Complainant has made the complaint to Ombudsman of the R.B.I within 15 days from the date of receipt of reply of the Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. well before the prescribed period of one year, hence, the question of delay in complaining does not arise. Complainant also sent reminders to the Opposite Party No. 1 but they did not give any reply. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay jointly and severally Rs. 25,000/- along with interest 12 % p.a., Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs. 15,000/- on account of physical losses of the Complainant.
2. Opposite Party No. 1 has not filed the written statement within stipulated period. Hence, the Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant is a customer of Opposite Party No.  1 and therefore he has no cause of action against it. It is stated that there is no deficiency on its part. It is stated that in case there was an unauthorized transaction, the Complainant could have approached it within reasonable time so that the video footage of the ATM could have been preserved. It is stated that as per the Reserve Bank of India Regulations, in case of any third party unauthorized transaction, if a customer fails to inform the bank about the said transaction within seven days of the alleged transaction then the liability of the bank cannot be fastened upon the bank. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Munmun Gupta, Branch Manager, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he along with his daughter has a joint account in the bank of Opposite Party No. 1. It is stated that on 05.05.2018, some person had withdrawn cash from his account from the ATM of the HDFC Bank. In total an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was withdrawn on the said date by using the ATM three times. The Complainant came to know about this fact in March 2019 when he went to the barcode machine for updation of his bank passbook. In this regard, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 and also the Police. He made a written complaint to the bank on 27.06.2019. Thereafter, he issued reminders dated 23.07.2019 and dated 13.08.2019. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No. 2 is that the Complainant has not approached the bank within reasonable time so the video footage could not be preserved. As per the case of the Complainant, the cash was withdrawn from his account by using ATM on 05.05.2018. He came to know about this withdrawal only in March 2019, thereafter, he made the written complaint to the bank on 27.06.2019. The first thing which is to be noted is that the money/cash was withdrawn from the ATM by using the ATM card. If for the sake of arguments, we assume it that someone has copied/prepared duplicate ATM card of the Complainant, even then it is not possible to withdraw the cash from the ATM for the reason that four digit PIN is only known to the Complainant. Therefore, this assertion of the Complainant is not believable. The other thing is to be noted is that the cash was withdrawn from the ATM on 05.05.2018. The Complainant came to know about this withdrawal in March 2019. This is also not believable. Further, even after knowing this fact or withdrawal, the Complainant made the written complaint only on 27.06.2019, which is also not believable.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove its case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 22.09.2023.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

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