Delhi

North East

CC/388/2015

Shri Naresh Padiyar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2019

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. 388/15

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Naresh Padiyar Flat No.- 1028 Janta Flats G.T.B. Enclave Near Paruram Park New Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2	HDFC Bank Ltd Faridabad Sector-16 Haryana Add Sco-6, Shopping Center, Sector-16 Faridabad Haryana-121001 Canara Bank Branch Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095	Opposite Parties

 

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

07.10.2015 22.01.2019 22.01.2019

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 (HDFC bank) Delhi having savings bank account therewith bearing No. 02791050026051. On 06.07.2015, the complainant had gone to the ATM of OP2 and at around 06:46 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. It was stated by the complainant that there was no security guard at the said ATM to whom the complainant could report the said incident. Further the complainant on 07.07.2015 lodged a complaint with OP1 customer care bearing complaint no. 930636 and OP1 gave one week’s time to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant on 16.07.2015 again called OP1 customer care and complaint No. DELC 0715170317 was given to him but OP1 gave him only false assurance. On 20.07.2015 the complainant visited OP1 bank at Dilshad Garden Delhi-95 and filled the ATM transaction Form and OP1 took 21 days time for remitting the said amount but even after 21 days the complainant did not receive the said amount back in his account. Thereafter when the complainant demanded CCTV footage from OP1 bank, officials of OP1 asked him to lodge an FIR first then only OP1 will provide CCTV Footage in this regard. However, despite filing complaint with the police on 11.08.2015, the complainant never got CCTV Footage from the OP1 bank which kept dilly dallying. 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. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of police complaint dated 11.08.2015, copy of passbook entries highlighting the disputed transaction, copy of complaint lodged by complainant with OP2 regarding the alleged wrongful debit/disputed transaction.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 30.10.2015 and OP1 and OP2 were served on 10.11.2015 and 12.11.2015 respectively.  However none appeared on behalf of OPs despite services. Therefore, both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.01.2016 and 02.03.2016.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence and written arguments on 19.05.2016 and 25.07.2018 respectively reiterating his grievance made in his complaint.
4. 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. The complainant had made sincere efforts by way of lodging prompt complaint with OP1 as well as with the concerned police station on directions of 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. OP2 failed to put forth its defence of non defective / functional ATM machine and supporting documentary evidence in its defence.

5. We therefore find both OPs deficient in service in having failed to address the problem of the complainant. We therefore find merit in the case of complainant and give him benefit of doubt in the absence of rebuttal by OPs due to their non appearance in the matter and accordingly direct the OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund / remit the wrongful debit of Rs. 10,000/- back to the account of the complainant held with OP1.

We further award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards expense incurred by the complainant and for mental pain and agony and harassment suffered by the complainant inclusive of litigation charges payable by OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to the complainant. Let the order be complied by both OPs within 30 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order.

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on22.01.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)    President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member