Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/579/2015

Amarjeet Singh Talwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kabir Chopra Adv.

17 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	579 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	09.10.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	17.06.2016

 

 

 

 

Amarjeet Singh Talwar s/o Sh.Ajit Singh, resident of H.No.270/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh.

 

             Complainant

Versus

 

1]  ICICI Bank Private Limited, a banking company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered corporate office at ICICI Bank Towers Bandra-Kurla through its C.O.O. (Chief Operating Officer)

 

2]  ICICI Bank through its Branch Manager, situated at Sector 11, Panchkula.

 

3]  ICICI Bank Private Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office 46, Chandigarh.

 

4]  ICICI Bank Private Limited, ATM situated at Sector 45, Chandigarh.

 

  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Kabir Chopra, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant having an account with Opposite Party No.2, visited the ATM machine installed in Sector 45 (Burail), Chandigarh and gave command of withdrawal of money after entering the PIN number, but the machine got “Hang/Stuck/Non responsive”, as a result the transaction failed (Ann.C-1).  Then the complainant moved to another ATM machine installed in the same cabin next to the said machine and withdrew an amount of Rs.1000/- and the transaction was successful.  It is averred that on reaching home after 5 minutes, the complainant received a message on his mobile that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn from his account (Ann.C-2) and this shows that Rs.1000/- was withdrawn earlier to Rs.10,000/-.  On receiving the said message, the complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party bank, also visited Sector 46 Branch of the Opposite Party Bank and made a written complaint as well but nothing concrete was done.  The Opposite Parties neither provided the CCTV footage of the ATM during the period the ATM was used nor refunded/credited the disputed amount of Rs.10,000/-.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and admitted the complainant’s having an account with their bank, holding ATM-cum-Debit Card and using the ATM machine of their bank for withdrawal of amount.  However, it is stated that the complainant had already approached the banking ombudsman and in terms of the complaint, which had been raised by the complainant before the Banking Ombudsman, the complainant has already received (though not payable) the amount of Rs.10,000/- .  It is also stated that in response to the letter of the complainant, the bank had replied vide letter dated 20.10.2015 that as per record, the transaction of Rs.10,000/- was successful and fully paid.  It is asserted that the certification issued by the ATM reconciliation team dated 13.10.2015 showing that no excess cash has been reported in the concerned ATM for 29^th June, 2015, which is the date of the disputed transaction as alleged, transaction has been found to be successfully carried out. Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting that of the reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant vide present complaint, raised grouse against the Opposite Parties claiming that they failed to provide due services to the complainant. In short, the complainant is maintaining an account in the Opposite Parties Bank and was issued an ATM Card, which when was used by the complainant on 29.6.2015 for the purpose of withdrawing certain amount, the machine installed at Sector 45 (Burail), Chandigarh after receiving the command for withdrawal got hanged and no amount was disbursed to the complainant.  The complainant submitted that by operating another machine installed in the same premises, the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.1000/- from his account and left the premises for his home and reaching home received a message that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant, which the complainant never received.  It is claimed by the complainant that the matter was duly agitated with the officials of the Opposite Party Bank and a complaint was duly lodged along with letter requesting the Branch Office Sector 46, Chandigarh to provide CCTV footage of ATM for the period the machine was used by the complainant. The complainant claimed that neither the OPs provided any footage of the disputed date nor they refunded the amount to the complainant.  It is claimed that the statement of account shows that the debit entry of Rs.1000/- is prior in time and it is followed by entry of Rs.10,000/- later in time. Despite claiming Rs.10,000/-, the complainant also asked for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, which states that in case the amount wrongly debited is not credited within a span of 7 working days from the date of complaint, penalty of Rs.100/- per day is to be imposed. 

 

7]       The OPs in their defence submitted that the complainant has concealed the factum that before filing the present complaint, he approached the Banking Ombudsman and the complainant has already received the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was paid in terms of the orders of the Banking Ombudsman.  They further specify that on the basis of the directions issued by the Banking Ombudsman in terms of an e-mail dated 24.11.2015, the OPs have credited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant on 26.11.2015.  Denying any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, it is submitted that the abovesaid amount was paid only in compliance of the orders of the Banking Ombudsman, which otherwise the OPs were not under any obligation to pay for the reason that on the complaint of the complainant, the bank checked all the records and it was found that the disputed transaction was successfully paid an no excess cash was reported for the said day.  Claiming no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

 

8]       From the submission of the OPs, it is clear that the complainant has received back his disputed amount for the refund of which he filed the present complaint i.e. Rs.10,000/-, but is also clear from the submission that the amount refunded by the OPs, was in compliance of the orders of the Banking Ombudsman and the amount was transferred in the account of the complainant on 26.11.2015 i.e. during the pendency of the present complaint as the complaint was filed on 9.10.2015. The complainant has also admitted the receipt of the above amount in his replication, but claimed that the OPs are still liable for the deficiency in service rendered in not entertaining his complaint timely and also for their failure to provide CCTV footage despite due demand made in time. Further claimed compensation, under the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, for not settling the claim within the prescribed period.  

 

9]       We find force in the plea of the complainant and in view of the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the OPs are liable for their deficient services. The Opposite Parties have not placed on record any cogent evidence to show the efforts made by them to redress the grievance of the complainant.

 

10]      It is observed that OPs had not investigated the matter thoroughly at their end despite having custody of the video footage captured in the CCTV camera installed in the premises, where the complainant operated the ATM machine for the withdrawal of the amount.  For their inaction, the complainant was forced to run from pillar to post to get his hard earned money back. Before filing the present complaint, the complainant also filed complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. Even the Banking Ombudsman in its order has observed that due to the failure on their part (OPs) to provide CCTV footage, which was a conclusive evidence to establish that the money was dispensed with or not, they were ordered to make the payment of disputed amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Even before this Forum, the OPs have not come with the plea that they were unable to provide the CCTV footage due to the malfunction of the CCTV camera installed in the premises where the ATM machine was installed vide which the disputed amount was alleged to be withdrawn by the complainant. No reason has been assigned by the OPs for not providing the CCTV footage to the complainant. For such deficient services, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant. 

 

11]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved.  Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against Opposite Parties and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, agony, harassment.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount as mentioned in sub-para (a) above to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till realization, besides paying litigation expenses. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th June, 2016                      

                                            Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

                                       PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER