Order No.  16     Dated   21-08-2015.

       The case of the complainant in short is that complainant worked at Britannia Industries Ltd., 15, Taratala Road, Kolkata-88 and her salary account had been maintained with o.p. no.1 being S.B. A/C No.031701507744. On 3.6.13 complainant went to DCB Bank ATM at South City Mall to withdraw Rs.500/- by using the ATM card issued by o.p. No.1. To her utter surprise she found that no money had been dispensed from the machine but the amount deducted from her account. On the very next day i.e. on 4.6.13 she went to o.p. no.1 to lodge a complaint and the official of o.p. no.1 informed her to make the same complaint on phone banking. Accordingly complainant lodged a complaint before o.p. no.1 being no.SR270732341 and on the same day she talked with banking representative of ICICI Bank over phone and they requested her to give them seven days time. After seven days i.e. 13.6.13 complainant called them again and they informed her the withdrawal of Rs.500/- was successful one. After this conversation they suggested to lodge another complaint through phone banking service of ICICI Bank which she did being complaint no.SR271946999. Subsequently ICICI Bank requested her to wait two weeks. On 9.7.13 complainant again contacted with ICICI Bank through phone banking service to look into her complaint. ICICI Bank informed the complainant that DCB Bank has not responded to their queries. ICICI Bank requested the complainant to lodge a police complaint at nearest P.S. Accordingly; complainant lodged a police complaint at New Alipore P.S. But till date the amount of Rs.500/- has not been reversed to complainant’s salary account. Hence, the application praying for refund of Rs.500/- along with compensation and cost.

            O.p. no.1 appeared before this Forum and filed w/v. In their w/v they have denied all the material allegations interalia stated that with a view to address the grievances raised by complainant, the o.p. no.1 contacted with o.p. no.2 and they have sought for the EJ copy, switch report, CCTV footage, machine breakdown report and no excess cash certificate. Upon receipt of the said document from o.p. no.2 and perusal of the ATM switch report and EJ copy dt.3.6.13 it is clear to them the transaction in question was successful. There was no excess cash report in the said ATM on 3.6.13. On 3.6.13 various transactions had been carried out with the said ATM but none other than the complainant lodged any complaint. O.p. no.1 also stated in their w/v that complainant used the ATM operated by o.p. no.2 and therefore she availed of the services from o.p. no.2. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the case against them.

            O.p. no.2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and as such, matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant has a salary account bearing account 031701507744 with o.p. no.1 and it is also admitted fact that complainant attempted to withdraw Rs.500/- on 3.6.13 from DCB ATM machine situated at South City Mall but no money has been dispensed from the said ATM though the account balance showed debit of Rs.500/- from complainant’s account. Accordingly, complainant contacted with o.p. no.1 through written complaint and through phone banking. After receiving the complaint o.p. no.1 sought for different documents from o.p. no.2 and from the document given by o.p. no.2, o.p. no.1 informed the complainant that the transaction was successful transaction. But o.p. no.1 did not provide any document to complainant to that effect. We are in the view that complainant had to go from the pillar to post for a meager amount of Rs.500/- but to no avail. If the complainant received the amount she did not complain for Rs.500/- only. O.p. no.1 did not take any initiative to settle the matter with the complainant. O.p. no.1 took long time to inform the complainant that the transaction was successful one. O.p. no.2 supplied the documents which were sought for by o.p. no.1. So, we find deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 only. Therefore, complainant has substantiated her case and is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is directed to refund to the complainant Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.