Delhi

North East

CC/104/2014

Shri Ram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Corporation Bank - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.  104/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Ram Singh S/o Shri Kadedeen R/o House no. 49/16, Street No. 37 B-Block, Burari Delhi-110084	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	Corporation Bank F-14, Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095   United Bank of India GTB Enclave, Nand Nagri Delhi-110095	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

18.03.2014 07.02.2020 07.02.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he is an account holder of OP1 (Corporation bank) Delhi having savings bank account therewith bearing No.046300010120841. On 18.01.2014, the total available balance in the complainant’s account held with OP1 was Rs. 26,544/-. The same day, the complainant had gone to the ATM of OP2 and at around 16:29 PM tried to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, however despite going through the standard process, the ATM machine of OP2 neither dispensed any money nor any slip came out therefrom or any SMS to this effect on complainant’s mobile was received. But the ATM machine of OP2 showed a total available balance of Rs. 15,544/- meaning thereby that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deducted from complainant’s account.  Further the complainant on 18.01.2014 lodged a complaint with OP1 customer care and was told that his failed transaction of Rs. 10,000/- has been raised by OP1 with OP2 and the ATM team of OP2 shall update the complainant within the next three days. Thereafter, the complainant on 23.01.2014 again lodged written complaint after six days, OP1 again assured that a credit entry of Rs. 10,000/- will be made in the account of the complainant within 7 days but the money was never credited in complainant‘s account despite several follow ups by the complainant in this regard and OPs also flouted the direction of RBI in this regard. The complainant asked for cash reconciliation statement, JP Log, amount of cash filled in ATM machine, excess cash, if any, found in said machine and CCTV footage from OPs, any internal complaint or FIR lodged by the bank officials in this regard. But OP1 simply endorsed its seal on 07.03.2014 on the ATM complaint form dated 23.01.2014 with Claim Status: rejected. Lastly, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum for issuance of directions to OPs to remit back the wrongly debited amount of Rs. 10,000/-, to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, Rs. 11,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of passbook entry highlighting account balance of Rs. 26,544/- as on 14.01.2014 and disputed withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- on 18.01.2014 showing availablebalance Rs. 15,544/-.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 20.03.2014 and none appeared on behalf of OP2 despite service effected held on 29.04.2014 and therefore was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.02.2015. OP1 appeared appearance and filed written statement, it admitted the factum of debit of Rs. 10,000/- from complainant’s account held with it on 18.01.2014 and that a written complaint to this effect was lodged by complainant with it on 23.01.2014 which was rejected vide OP1 endorsement seal thereon dated 07.03.2014 and rest of the contents of the complaint were denied as incorrect.
3. Rejoinder in defence taken by OP1 was filed by the complainant in which complainant submitted that OP1 did not lodge any claim with OP2 in disregard to direction issued u/s 18 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2017 of RBI dated 27.05.2011 in its circular no. DPSS no. 2631/02.10.002/2010-2011 and despite complainant having asked for JP Log, statement of date and amount of cash filled in OP2 machine immediately before the disrupted transaction and amount of excess cash, if any, found in the machine after the transaction but was never provided any documents by OP.
4. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit exhibited the documents relied upon as annexure C1 –C4.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP1 through its Senior Manager.
6. Written arguments were filed by both parties. The written arguments filed by OP1, its submitted that it rejected the claim case of the ct as if did not find any merits in his complaint, cash having been dispensed by the ATM machine of OP2 and duly received by the complainant. Moreover, the ATM machine did not belong to OP1 but to OP2 and in event where transaction fails, the amount is automatically back into the user’s account but in the present case since the transaction was successful, the same was not credited back. OP1 urged that there was no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint on ground of its being devoid of merits.
7. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have carefully perused the case filed and material documents placed on record therewith. The debit of Rs. 10,000/- is clearly established from the passbook entry of the complainant vide account held with OP1 and the same has also been admitted by OP1 as also the claim rejection by it made on 07.03.2014. The complainant had made sincere efforts by way of lodging prompt complaint with OP1. OP1 cannot shirk its responsibility and duty towards its customer but it failed to place on record any switch report, no excess cash certificate, JP Log / E- Journal which in such cases are mandatorily required and recognised / admissible defence for the bank in disputed ATM transaction cases. No documentary evidence has been filed by OP1 in the present case in sheer act of callousness and irresponsibility towards the complainant. OP1 also failed to place on record any enquiry report or any documentary evidence despite direction of this Forum to place on record documents pertaining to any step that may have taken by OP1 to investigate the matter with OP2. Mere assumption that the customer / complainant may have left the ATM machine and written arguments on 19.05.2016 and 25.07.2018 respectively reiterating his grievance made in his complaint. The bald assertion made by OP1 of complainant having left the ATM Machine of OP2 without waiting for cash to be dispensed therefrom is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (an assertion made without proof). OP2 did not come forth with any defence by way of any investigation or assistance extended to OP1 for any enquiry made in this regard and also whether the ATM machine was defective or functional on the relevant date.
8. We therefore find both OPs deficient in service in having failed to address the problem of the complainant and find merit in the case of complainant and give him benefit of doubt in the absence of any cogent evidence or enquiry report or the requisite documents in the nature or EJ Log, Switch Report, Cash Reconciliation receipt and no excess cash certificate. We accordingly direct the OP1 to credit the sum of Rs. 10,000/- wrongly debit from his account. OP1 shall be at liberty to recover the said amount from OP2 as per guideline of Reserve Bank of India. We further direct both OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment inclusive litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied by both OPs within 30 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order. 
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.          
10. File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on  07.02.2020

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member