Delhi

North East

cc/90/2013

Shri Ramesh Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2022

ORDER

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.90/13

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Ramesh Babu S/o Sh. Laxman Singh, R/o H.No. 289, Gali No. 5, Khajani Nagar, Johripur, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.   2.	HDFC Bank, B-Block, Main Road, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi   Union Bank, Main Road, Gokalpur,     Delhi-110094	Opposite Party No. 1                 Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                DATE OF ORDER:

08.03.2013 06.07.2022 15.09.2022

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

     Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

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

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is an account holder in Union Bank of India in Gokulpur Branch, Delhi having account no. 651102010002315. It is alleged by the Complainant that on 06.02.2013, the Complainant visited the HDFC Bank ATM which is in front of Kundan Lal Petrol Pump, Loni Road, Gokulpur, Delhi for withdraw a sum of Rs. 500/- at 8:15 PM but his ATM card got stuck in the machine and no cash was dispensed from that ATM.  It is also alleged by the Complainant that at 9:01 & 9:02 PM, he got a message on his mobile for deduction of Rs. 17,000/- from his bank account.  After that, Complainant lodged a complaint on the helpline no. of Union Bank of India and narrated the incident but the bank has not taken any action to his complaint.
2. Complainant also made a call on 100 number on 08.02.2013 in this regard but the police refused to take any action and said that this is a bank matter, the bank will look into it.  Complainant suspects that all this happened with the connivance of the Guards of HDFC bank and asked for video footage of CCTV camera dated 06.02.2013 but he didn’t get any response from HDFC branch bank.
3. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental stress/financial loss, Rs. 5000/- as litigation charges and              Rs. 17,000/- which were wrongly debited from his account.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

4. Vide order dated 01.07.13 the defense of the Opposite Party No.1 was struck off. Against the said order the Opposite Party No.1 filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and same was allowed Vide order dated 27.05.14. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant.it is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged that no money was withdrawn from the ATM of Opposite Party No.1 and the cash was withdrawn from the ATM of State Bank of India, therefore the Opposite Party No.1 is no liability to pay any amount to the Complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

 

Case of Opposite Party No. 2

5. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It is stated that no money / cash was withdrawn from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 and therefore it has not liability towards the Complainant. It is admitted that Complainant is having an account with it. It is stated that the transactions were successful and as such amount of 17,000/- was debited to the account of the Complainant. Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

Rejoinders to the Written Statements of Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant filed separate replications to the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties and he has reaffirmed the averments made in the complaint and has denied the averments made in the written statement.

Evidence of the Parties

7. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. To support its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Shashank Bhargava, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.1. In his affidavit, he has supported his case as mentioned in the written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 in support of his case has filed the affidavit of Shri Roop chand Raghav, Manager of the Opposite Party No.2. In his affidavit, he has supported the assertions made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2.

Arguments and Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant and the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he is having an account with Union Bank of India i.e. Opposite Party No.2. It is his case that on 06.02.13 at about 08:15 p.m. he went to the ATM of Opposite Party No.1 for withdrawing Rs. 500/-. He inserted his ATM card in the machine and the card was stuck up in the machine and no cash was dispensed by the machine. It is his case that at about 9:01/9:02 p.m. he received two messages regarding withdrawal of Rs. 17,000/- through ATM. It is his case that he did not withdraw any such amount and the said cash was not withdrawn by him. It is his case that the said cash must have been withdrawn fraudulently by the Guards deputed at the ATM of HDFC Bank. If we believe the version of the Complainant, at the most we can say that the ATM card of Complainant was stuck up in the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 and the said card was taken out fraudulently by the Guards of the Opposite Party No.2. If we believe that the said ATM card of the Complainant came into possession of the Guards of the HDFC Bank, even then the said guards cannot withdraw cash from ATM because four digits PIN of the holder of the card is required. In the present case, only the Complainant was supposed to know his secret PIN. It is not his case that he had ever disclosed his four digits PIN to the said Guards.
9. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the case of the Complainant cannot be believed and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
10.  Order announced on 15.09.2022.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President