Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/853/2016

Miss. Nitika Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Yes Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In person

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/853/2016
Date of Institution	:	23/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	04/01/2018

 

1.     Miss Nitika Sharma, resident of House No.56, Mannat Enclave 1, Near Vill Pabhat, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar.

2.     Mr. Tanav Bhardwaj, resident of House No.56, Mannat Enclave 1, Near Vill Pabhat, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     General Manager, Yes Bank, SCO No.179 and SCO No.180, Sector 17C, Chandigarh 160017.

2.     General Manager, HDFC Bank, Golden Tower Airport Road, Kodhihali, Bangalore, Karnataka-560017

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI RAVINDER SINGH	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Tanav Bhardwaj, Complainant No.2 in person, as authorised representative of complainant No.1.
	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Counsel for OP-1.
	:	Sh. Sunil Narang, Counsel for OP-2.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that complainant No.1 is regular customer of OP-2 and since she shares the account with her mother, therefore, she had been issued two ATM cards by the bank. 

On 5.4.2016 around 8:00 p.m., the complainant’s brother withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM machine of OP-1.  Though the ATM machine did not release the amount, but, the same was deducted from the account.  Complainant No.1 filed complaint over phone to customer care of OP-2 on 6.4.2016. Thereafter OP-2 raised the dispute with OP-1 for reversal of the transaction, but, it denied the same.  However, no proof was provided to the complainant from OP-1. The complainant also filed an FIR against the incident on 21.6.2016 with the Chandigarh Police and the police raised the dispute to the bank for the CCTV footage, but, it failed to do so. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.

2.         OP-1 in its written statement has averred that it was not the ATM of OP-1, but, the ATM of OP-2 which had been used by the complainants for withdrawal of the amount on 5.4.2016.  It has been denied that OP-2 had raised any request with OP-1 and/or that it denied the request for reversal of the said transaction on the ground that the same was successful and the amount was dispensed. It has been denied that the police further raised the dispute to the bank for the CCTV footage. OP-1 has denied having received any notice from the police or any other authority in relation to the alleged transactions. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its written reply has averred that as per information received from OP-1, the ATM machine of OP-1 was used by the complainants and there was successful transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from the said machine.  It has been stated that OP-2 promptly attended the complaint of the complainant and took up the matter with OP-1.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Separate Rejoinders were filed by the complainants denying all the averments in the written replies of OP-1 and OP-2. 
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by complainant No.2 in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
7.         The sole grouse of complainant No.1 in the present case is that her brother (complainant No.2) withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM machine of OP-1/Yes Bank. Though the said amount was never released from the ATM, but, the same was deducted from the account of the complainant maintained with the OP-2 bank. Annexure I is the bank statement of HDFC bank/ OP-2 showing the debit of Rs.10,000/- on the date of incident i.e. 5.4.2016. Annexure II is the letter by OP-2 bank to complainant No.1 conveying that it raised the issue of dispute in question with OP-1/Yes Bank for the reversal of the said transaction. Annexure III is the complaint by complainant No.1 to the police regarding the incident in question. As per the case of the complainants, inaction on the part of OPs amount to deficiency in service.  Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
8.         The stand taken by OP-1/Yes Bank is that ATM of OP-2 was used by the complainant for the withdrawal of the amount on the date of incident i.e. 5.4.2016. Pertinently, it is denied that OP-2 ever requested or raised any issue pertaining to the present case.  It has also been contended that the issue of CCTV footage was never raised before it as there was no notice from any authority or the police in relation to the disputed transaction.  Hence, it is not deficient in providing any kind of service to the complainants.
9.         OP-2 has averred that as per information received from OP-1, there was successful transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- in the present case. It has also been contended that it took up the matter with OP-1 and hence it is not deficient in providing services to the complainants.
10.         In this backdrop, one thing is apparent that vide Annexure II when OP-2 enquired from OP-1 regarding the status of the case of the complainant, no response was sent by OP-1. Rather clear denial in its (OP-1’s) written statement, that too in a purely mechanical manner, and putting the whole blame on the complainants is nothing, but, an act of rendering deficient services to the complainants and indulgence in unfair trade practice. Even during the pendency of the present case, when the issue of CCTV footage was raised, no such document was supplied either to the complainants or to this Forum which is clear cut negligence on the part of OP-1. 
11.         So far as the question of deficiency in service on the part of HDFC Bank is concerned, after going through the facts of the case, it has come to our notice that by writing letter Annexure II to OP-1 it (i.e. OP-2) never took up any follow up for the same. Even during the pendency of the present case, OP-2 has not produced any evidence to this effect that any investigation was actually conducted by it and if so what was the result of the same.  Since an amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from the account of complainant No.1 on 5.4.2016, OP-2 should have taken the matter to its logical end.  However, it seems that despite specific allegations in the complaint, no investigation has been conducted otherwise the result of the same would have been produced before this Forum.  Hence, the above inaction on the part of both OPs 1 & 2 and shouldering responsibility to each other in itself amounts to deficiency in service towards their customers.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately reverse the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainants.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to them;
3. To pay to the complainants Rs.8,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/01/2018	[Ravinder Singh]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member