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. 36/19

In the matter of:

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

            Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

  Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case are that the Complainant is having a saving bank account in Opposite Party No.2 bearing no. 008591800134574 having ATM Card No. 5381032201678373. The Complainant stated that on 12.12.18, the Complainant withdraw a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 ATM but the ATM machine showed decline in process and he failed to withdraw the said amount after sometime the Complainant got a message that the transaction is completed. The Complainant immediately called the customer care of Opposite Party No.2 and the official of Opposite Party No.2 assured the Complainant that he will refund the amount to his account till 20.12.18. The Complainant stated he again called the customer care of Opposite Party No.2 on 26.12.18 but the official of Opposite Party No.2 did not give any satisfactory response to him. The Complainant again called the customer care of Opposite Party No.2 again on 18.01.19 but he again did not get any satisfactory response from Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant submitted that he lodged a complaint before Jyoti Nagar Police Station on 22.01.19. The Complainant called the customer care several times but the official of Opposite Party did not give any satisfactory response to him and the said amount of Rs. 8,000/- is also not refunded to him, hence this show deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to reverse the amount Rs. 8,000/- in the account of the Complainant. He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation charges.

Case of Opposite Party No.1

2. That on a bare perusal of the present complaint, it is self evident that the present complaint has not raised sufficient, valid grounds for granting the relief sought by the Complainant and that the Complainant is not entitled to any indulgence from this Ld. Consumer Forum against the Opposite Party No.1.
3. That at the outset, it is pertinent to mention that a bare perusal of the records of the HDFC Bank Branch and the ATM Logs dated 12.12.18 suggests that while the Complainant’s attempted two transactions in the Opposite HDFC Bank Durgapuri ATM, as per the audit of the Opposite Party No.1 Bank and ATM team, one transaction was successful and the one declined. The Opposite Party No.1 has also checked the ATM balance report and observed that no physical excess or any difference found against the disputed transactions.
4. That the Opposite Party No.1 can also confirm from its ATM Logs that after the occurrence of the transaction, the excess amount that was purportedly reversed on the cancellation of the said transaction should have been reflected in the logs of the Opposite Party No.1 but it is pertinent to mention that no physical excess is displayed in logs of the Opposite Party No.1.
5. That furthermore, the slip relied upon by the Complainant in its Annexure 1 of the complaint clearly states that the transaction has declined. However, the message relied upon by the Complainant states that an amount of Rs. 8,000/- has been debited to the account number of the Complainant. It is also pertinent to mention that in the present case, no charge back has been issued by the Opposite Party No.2 bank towards Opposite Party No.1 which is the norm in cases where transactions are cancelled. In such an event, the ATM i.e. Opposite Party No.1 assumes no responsibility for the amount debited and the entire responsibility/ liability of the same lies upon the Bank which is Opposite Party No.2.
6. That in light of the abovesaid facts and circumstances It is pertinent to mention that in an event where the excess amount of declined transaction is not reflected in the accounts of the Opposite Party No.1, the whole and sole onus of reversing the said amount of Rs. 8,000/- is on the Opposite Party No.2.

Case of Opposite Party No.2

7. That the Complainant Mr. Kumar Kaushik being the customer of the Answering Opposite Party is holding a Saving Account No. 008591800134574. The Complainant was issued a Debit Card bearing no. 5381032201678373 by the answering Opposite Party on the request of the Complainant.
8. That the complainant visited the ATM facility of the Opposite Party No.1 at Durga Puri, Loni Raod. As per the Complainant, he had attempted the transaction for the withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- and the same was done successfully. Thereafter the Complainant again attempted the transaction for withdrawal of Rs. 8,000/- from the ATM machine of the Opposite Party No.1 which was failed and the ATM machine did not dispense the cash. It is apt to mention here that as the Complainant used the ATM facility of the Opposite Party No.1 hence all the details including the EJ Log is within the custody of the Opposite Party No.1, and only the Opposite Party No.1 can prove that whether the said transaction is successful or not.
9. That the Complainant approached the Answering Opposite Party and raised a charge back for reversal of the disputed amount and the same was registered as Complaint NO. CRM-CS121218005912. Accordingly, a chargeback had been raised by the Answering Opposite Party in NPCI Portal for the disputed transaction, but the same was rejected by the Opposite Party No.1 stating successful transaction.
10. That the Complainant again raised the dispute and the same was registered as Complaint No. CRM- CS261218003151. Accordingly, 2^nd chargeback (Pre-Arbitration) had been raised by the Answering Opposite Party in NPCI Portal for the disputed transaction, but the same was again rejected by the Opposite Party No.1 stating cash has been dispensed.
11. That it is submitted that though the Complainant is the customer of the Answering Opposite Party, whereas he used the ATM facility of the Opposite Party No.1 and as per the RBI guidelines the Opposite Party No.1 is under the obligation to repay the amount of the bank whose ATM facility, its customer has availed. In the present case the Complainant had availed the ATM facility of the Opposite Party No.1 and even after the chargeback requests raised by the Answering Opposite Party, the Opposite Party No.1 declined the same. Hence if there is any deficiency in services then it would be of the Opposite Party No. 1 and not of the answering Opposite Party.  

            Rejoinders to the Written Statements of Opposite Parties

12. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein he has denied the objections raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated his averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

13. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

14. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri  Rajeeb Gupta, Branch Manager of Opposite party No. 1, HDFC Bank Ltd, B-26, East Jyoti Nagar, Main Loni Road, Delhi-110093 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Ms. Parul Srivastava, Authorized Signatory/ Deputy Branch Head of the Opposite Party No.2, having one of its Branch at Ground and part first floor NH1 Vinayak Hospital, Atta Sector 27, Noida UP-201301, presently at Delhi, wherein the averments made in the written statements have been supported.

            Arguments and conclusion

15. We have heard the Complainant and the Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he is having saving bank account in Opposite Party No.2 bearing no. 008591800134574 having ATM Card No. 5381032201678373 Complainant stated that on 12.12.18 he went to ATM of Opposite Party No.1 to withdraw a sum of Rs. 8,000/- which was declined but same amount was debited from his account maintained by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 get refund of Rs. 8,000/- which was not dispensed by the ATM of Opposite Party No.1. As per Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant attempted two transactions in ATM of Opposite Party No.1 as per audit of Opposite Party No.1 and ATM team one transaction was successful and the one declined. Further, it is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that it is duty of Opposite Party No.2 towards Opposite Party No.1 to raise chargeback for non-disbursal of Rs. 8,000/- by the ATM of Opposite Party No.1. As per Opposite Party No.2, Complainant transaction for withdrawal of      Rs. 8,000/- from the ATM machine of Opposite Party No.1 was failed and the ATM machine did not dispensed the cash. On receiving of complaint of Complainant for non-receiving of Rs. 8,000/-, Opposite Party No.2 raised a chargeback for reversal of the disputed amount, but same was rejected by the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 again raised the dispute with the Opposite Party No.1 for reversal of disputed amount which was again rejected.
16. It is admitted fact that Complainant visited ATM of Opposite Party No.1 for withdrawal of Rs. 8,000/- which was declined and same was admitted by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. As per Opposite Party No.1, they have not received any request for chargeback for reversal of the disputed amount from Opposite Party No.2 which was denied by Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 for not reversing the amount of  Rs. 8,000/- to Opposite Party No.2 even after receiving chargeback request for reversal from Opposite Party No.2.
17. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 shall pay the amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till  recovery. The Opposite Party No.1 shall also pay an amount of  Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.  
18. Order announced on 11.11.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.