Haryana

StateCommission

A/562/2016

CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

DINESH SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.KAMBOJ

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :           562 of 2016

Date of Institution:          22.06.2016

Date of Decision :           26.09.2017

 

Canara Bank, SME Branch, 1C-01, Shop No.3 & 4, Bata Hardware Road, Faridabad, District Faridabad, through its GPA Holder Chief Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Dinesh Sharma son of Sh. Ramayan Sharma, resident of House No.FCA-93, Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                         

                                               

Present:              Shri Sukhwinder Singh Kamboj, Advocate for appellant.

Shri M.K. Sood, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Canara Bank, Faridabad-opposite party (for short, ‘bank’) has challenged the order dated March 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Dinesh Sharma-complainant was allowed.  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as hereunder:-

          “10.   Opposite party is directed to credit an amount of Rs.25,000/- in saving bank account of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its debit till realization of amount and to pay Rs.2200/- on account of mental agony, tension as well as harassment besides Rs.1100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order…”

 

2.      On December 08^th, 2013 at about 7-9 P.M, complainant tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- from the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) but the same was not disbursed and the amount of Rs.25,000/- was shown to have been debited from his account. The complainant requested the Bank to credit the amount in his account but to no avail.   

3.      The Bank, in its, written version pleaded that as per record and evidence, the complainant had successfully withdrawn Rs.15,000/- at 7-11 p.m and Rs.10,000/- at 7.12 p.m on December 08^th, 2013 by using ATM Card No.5497592464014070.  Upon receipt of complaint from the complainant, the bank checked the record and found the aforesaid transactions successful. 

4.      It is not in dispute that the complainant maintained saving bank account with the bank.  It is also not disputed that the amount of Rs.25,000/- had been debited from the account of complainant on account of ATM withdrawal on December 08^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-5 and C-6).  The complainant also requested the bank to provide CCTV Footages but the bank showed its inability to provide the same vide email Exhibit C-3.   The bank did not lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the complainant himself withdrew the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/-.   In this view of the matter, the bank has rightly been held liable for rendering deficient services to the complainant.  Thus, the order passed by the District Forum does not require any interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 26.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K