Delhi

East Delhi

CC/984/2013

AHMAD RAZA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  984/13

 

Shri Mohd. Ahmad Raza

S/o Shri Nayab Hussain

R/o A-88, New Ashok Nagar

New Delhi                                                                                        ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Through Chief Manager

Laxmi Nagar Branch

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Punjab National Bank

Through Branch Manager

Patel Chowk Bareilly

Uttar Pradesh                                                                                    ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 20.11.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 04.07.2017

Judgment Passed on: 05.07.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri Mohd. Ahmad Raza (complainant), against HDFC Bank ltd. (OP-1) and Punjab National Bank (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 2.        The facts in brief are that the complaint has a saving bank student account with Punjab National Bank, Patel Chowk Bareily, UP bearing no. 36470015000254055  and he had been issued an ATM card linked with the said account.  On 13.06.2013, Mr. Naved, brother of the complainant used the ATM card of the complainant to withdraw Rs. 8,000/- from the ATM machine of HDFC Bank (OP-1), located at Nirman Vihar, but no amount was dispensed.  Mr. Naved again tried to withdraw Rs. 2,000/- from the same ATM machine of OP-1 and that time, the machine dispensed Rs. 2,000/- successfully. 

            When complainant checked his account balance, he noticed that         Rs. 8,000/- has been debited from his account.  He approached OP-1 and OP-2 and lodged his complaint before ATM Cell of OP-2 to redress his grievance, but of no avail.  On 04.07.2013, OP-2 issued a letter to OP-1 for providing video recording of the alleged transaction.  OP-1 informed the complainant to approach police, only then he could be allowed to see the video footage of the ATM.  The police officials allowed the complainant to see the video recording.   The complainant made his best efforts to satisfy the said officials regarding the failed transaction of Rs. 8,000/-, but all-in-vain.   

            Legal notice dated 24.09.2013 was sent to OPs, which was not replied. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay Rs. 8,000/-, which was wrongfully debited from the complainant’s account, Rs. 90,000/- on account of mental harassment, pain, injury and agony with interest @ 18% from the date of his complaint till payment. 

            Extract of bank passbook showing the false transaction, letter dated 04.07.2013 issued by OP-1, application of the complainant to the SHO,      Preet Vihar, dated 09.07.2013 and copy of legal notice and postal receipts are annexed with the complaint.      

3.         Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP.  Shri Chandan Kumar, Relationship Manager of HDFC Bank appeared but they did not file any reply.

4.         In support of his complaint, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit in which he has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as affidavit (Ex.CW-1), copy of passbook (Ex.CW-1/A), extract of bank passbook showing the false transaction (Ex.CW-1/B), letter dated 04.07.2013, issued by OP-1 (Ex.CW-1/C), application to the SHO, Preet Vihar, dated 09.07.2013        (Ex.CW-1/D) and copy of legal notice (Ex.CW-1/E). 

            Mohd. Naved, brother of the complainant has also examined himself on affidavit and narrated the same facts.  He has got exhibited the affidavit as   Ex. CW-2.

5.         We have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has alleged that he has not received the amount of Rs. 8,000/-, but the subsequent transaction was successful.  However, the complainant has not placed on record the ATM slips for the above said two transactions.  If we see Ex.CW1/C – letter dated 04.07.2013, issued by OP-2 to OP-1 requesting them to allow CCTV footage to be shown to the complainant; it has been written that “As per his version, he did not get the money and he lodged the complaint to ATM Cell.  He was informed later by the ATM Cell that his transaction on 16^th June’ 13 was complete and his claim was rejected”.  No document pertaining to the said complaint and response of ATM centre thereof has been placed on record.  Though, these documents have not been placed on record, but the fact that he was informed that his transaction was complete, it cannot be said that he did not get the amount of withdrawal.  Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of OP-1 and OP-2.

Hence, the present complaint is dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove his case.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                          (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                                    Member          

       

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President