Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/507

Rajeev Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                             Date of institution: 08.08.2014

Complaint Case. No.507/14                                                      Date of order:      25.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Rajeev Sood, R/O E-347, 2^nd floor, Tagore Garden Ext. Delhi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Complainant

VERSUS

Corporation Bank, WZM-6 Shyam Park, Nawada, Delhi-110059                                                                                                                                                                                               Opposite party-1

Axis Bank, Sanidya Plot No. B-16 VL MHTA Road, JVPD Scheme, Jhuvilleparle West Mumbai-400049                                                                                                                     Opposite Party-2

                                                                                                                                   

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

                        ShriRajeev Sood named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint against Corporation bank and another herein after referred as the opposite parties for seeking directions to the opposite parties to credit sum of Rs.10,000/- in his saving bank account with the opposite party no.2.

                        The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainant has a salary account in the opposite party no.2. He on 04.05.2013 visited ATM of the opposite party no.1 for withdrawl of a sum of Rs.10,000/- by use of ATM Card issued by the opposite party no.2. The complainant attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- but did not get the money from the ATM Machine. But after few seconds he received SMS from the opposite party no.2of withdrawl of the sum of Rs.10,000/- The complainant made several complaints to the opposite parties with a request of credit the sum of Rs.10,000/-. Butto no effect.Therefore, the complainant made complaint to Banking Ombudsmen of the Reserve Bank of India. The Banking Ombudsmen also did nothelp the complainant. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund his Rs.10,000/-.

                        Notices of the complainant were sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections of cause of action, maintainability and the complaint is false and frivolous, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs. However on merits the opposite party no.2admitted that the complainant had account no.913010014175811 with Juhu branch of the opposite party no.2. The complainant is holding a ATM cum Debit Card. The complainant further asserted that on 04.05.2013 he withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM of opposite party no.1. The record shows a successful transaction. All other allegations in the complaint are denied and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.Despite service none appeared on behalf of theopposite party no.1. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 wasproceededagainst ex-parte.The opposite party no.2 was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.12.2015.

                        When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, he tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his version also relied upon emails dated 11.05.2013,13.05.2013,11.05.2013,27.05.2013, 07.06.2013, 31.05.2013, 31.05.2013, 13.06.2013, 08.07.2013,12.07.2013 and 04.09.2013, complaint made to the Ombudsmen the Reserve Bank of India, complaint made to the opposite party no.2, statement of account of account no.913010014175811 of the complainant and order of Banking Ombudsmen of the Reserve bank of India dated 04.09.2013.

                        We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

                        From the perusal of the complaint, reply of the opposite party no.2, affidavit of the complainant and documents produced by the complainant it reveals that the complainant had saving account no.913010014175811 with the opposite party no.2. On 04.05.2013 he withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his saving account through ATM of the opposite party no.1 as shown in the statement of account and order dated 04.09.2013 of the ombudsmen.

                        Hon’ble State Commission of UT of Chandigarh in case law reported as 2008(III) CPJ page 21 Rajeshwar Singh V/S State Bankhas heldthat there is no dispute about it that appellant (complainant) was holding a account no. 01190020611 in State Bank of Patiala, Mohali branch and on 01.01.2005 he had opening balance of Rs.95.403/-. Now the question to be seen is whether he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,000/- on 20/21.01.2005 as alleged by the respondents or had not withdrawn any amount on that date as system of ATM installed at the premises of respondents no.2 to 5 was unable to process. It is further his case that he had only withdrawn Rs.15,000/- on 21.01.2005. A perusal of report dated 13.05.2005 of respondent no. 5 shows that the appellant had made a complaint regarding use of ATM Card no.6038455050200023710 and it was found that no excess amount in the concerned ATM had been found on that date. The copy of the J.P. Rolls (Annexure R-1) further shows that an amount as per TXN No.330 for Rs.10,000/- of account number 01190020611 at 11.58 had been withdrawn and further an amount of Rs.15,000/- had been withdrawn from the account vide TXN no. 332. Thus, record of the bank positively indicated that an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been withdrawn either by the appellant or by someone else by misusing card of the appellant to whom he may have handed over The appellant has not led any evidence that he had not withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,000/- or ATM system was not in operation on 20/21.01.2005.Similar view is taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case law reported as 2011(II) CPJ 106 NC State bank of india V/S K.K. Bhalla.

                        Similar are the facts of the present complaint. The Debit Card was in possession of the complainant and without disclosing the unique PIN number the Debit Card cannot be used. There is no evidence on behalf of the complainant that he did not give the Debit Card and did not disclose secret PIN number to third person. There is sufficient material on record that the amount is withdrawn and transaction is completed. The complainant also failed to lead evidence showing that he reported the matter to the opposite parties. He has also failed to prove that there is any unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

                        Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint. Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :25.04.2017

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                  (R.S.  BAGRI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT