Delhi

North East

CC/33/2016

Punjesh Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

03 Aug 2022

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. 33/16

 

       CORAM:

       Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

       Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

        In the matter of:

 

         Shri Punjesh Kumar S/o SHri Vipin Prasad R/o village and P.O

         Jagannath Pur. P.S Gopal Pur, District- Champaran (Bihar)845307

 

                                                                                                                           Complainant

	Versus

1. Corporation Bank (1703) Sec-16 Noida UP 201301

      Phone no. 0120.2514670 ( Now Union Bank of India)

 

      2.   Axis Bank ATM Suraj General Store Khora Colony

            Noida UP 201301

 

3. Axis Bank  A-13 Swathya Vihar Vikash Marg Laxmi Nagar

            IFS Code UTIB0000055 MICR code-110211010

 

                                                                                                               Opposite Parties

 

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

29.01.16 01.07.22 03.08.22

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

         

 

          Case of the complainant

 

1. The facts of the Complaint are that the Complainant had filed the present complaint under Consumer protection act 1986. The Complainant is a bank account holder in Corporation Bank Branch No. 1703 in sector 16 Noida 201301 having 3410 as last digits of his account no. It is alleged by the Complainant that on 07.11.15 the Complainant visited the axis bank ATM at Suraj General store khora colony Noida UP 201301 for withdrawing a sum of Rs.10,000/- at 17:18 p.m. It is alleged that no cash was dispensed from that ATM. It is also alleged by the Complainant that at 17:32 after 14 minutes of visiting the ATM he got a message on his mobile for deduction of Rs.10,000/- from his bank account. After that the Complainant again visited the ATM and used his ATM card 2-3 times but no cash was withdrawn from that ATM. It is also alleged by the Complainant that the Complainant visited his bank branch and narrated the incident but the branch officials did not pay any attention to his complaint. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Complainant visited the branch several times and 2 months and 10 days had passed but he did not get his money back in his account. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges and Rs. 10,000/- which were wrongly debited from his account.

           Case of Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant had filed his complaint which is without any cause of action, there is not deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No-1 and the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that the Opposite Party No -1 ask the Opposite Party No-2 for providing the CCTV footage and Axis Bank did not provide the CCTV footage by saying that the same cannot be provided as the same was not available due to some technical reason.  

 

The case of the Opposite Party No.2 and 3

3. The Opposite Party No-2 and 3 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and there is no privity of contract with the Complainant. It is stated that the transaction was successful and therefore Axis bank is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant. Opposite Party No-1 and Opposite Party No-2 have prayed for dismissal of the Complainant.

          Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support if his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents filed along with complaint.

           Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of   Vijaylaxmi wherein the averments made in the written statement has been supported.

 

           Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of  Shri Dheeraj Arora who has supported the case of Opposite Party No-2 as mentioned in the written statement.

          Arguments and Conclusions

7. We have heard the Learned Counsels for the Complainant. We have also perused the written argument filed by the parties.

         The case of the Complainant is that he inserted his ATM card (issued by Corporation Bank i.e. Opposite Party-1) in the ATM of Opposite Party-2. It is his case that no cash was dispensed by the said ATM and an amount of Rs. 10,000/-  was debited from his account. He approached Opposite Party-1 for refund of his amount. The case of Opposite Party No-1 is that it had taken up the matter with Opposite Party No-2 and Opposite Party No-3 and it demanded the CCTV footage of the said ATM. The CCTV footage was not provided by Opposite Party No-2 and Opposite Party No-3, on the ground that it was not available due to some technical reason. The case of Opposite Party No-2 and Opposite Party No-3 is that the transaction was successful therefore the Complainant cannot be refunded any amount.

            The only question which is to be decided is that whether the ATM of Opposite Party No-2 dispensed Rs.10,000/- after the Complainant inserted his ATM card in the machine. The best evidence was the CCTV footage which has not been provided by Opposite Party No-2 and Opposite Party No-3. The reason given for not providing the CCTV footage is that the CCTV footage was not available due to some technical reason. However, no evidence has been produced by Opposite Party    No-2 and Opposite Party No-3 to support the contention that CCTV footage was not available with it therefore the plea taken by Opposite Party     No-2 and Opposite Party No-3 cannot be accepted.

             In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No-2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the recovery of this amount. The Opposite Party-2 shall also pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses. This amount shall also carry an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the recovery of the said amount.

8. Order announced on 03.08.22.

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)