Complainant present in person
Opponent through M/S M. V. Kini & Co.
Per : Mr. M. N. Patankar, Member Place : PUNE
J U D G M E N T
30/06/2014
The present complaint is filed by the consumer against the bank for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The Complainant is residing at Somwar Peth, Pune – 11. The opponent is a bank, having its office at Raviwar Peth, Pune. As there were deficiencies in service complainant has filed the complaint. Complainant is a saving bank account holder of the opponent. The opponent is maintaining salary saving account of the complainant at 091501509676. It is alleged that on 16/03/2011 at 7.21 p.m. complainant withdrew Rs. 800/- from ATM of the bank at Raviwar Peth, Pune. Thereafter he received sms on his mobile that Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn from his account. The complainant contacted customer care service of the opponent and got a reply that facts will be ascertained within 24 hours. However, nothing was communicated to the complainant. On 19/03/2011 complainant approached the opponent and submitted request to watch video clip of the particular day from a camera of concerned ATM centre. The clip was shown to the complainant. The video was not clear; hence unable to identify the persons who made transactions on 16/03/2011. The video recording done at ATM centre was not clear. Therefore, who withdrawn the amount of Rs. 10,000/- can not be pin pointed. Therefore present complaint before this Forum is made.
2] The opponent in reply stated that the transaction of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant is correct and tallies to his account. Further, it is stated that the ATM machine on the day was properly functioning. The responsibility of showing clear faces of the persons who made transaction in ATM centre is denied. It is also stated that, ATM card unless swapped in machine, no transaction is possible. Proper precaution and safety of the card is sole responsibility of the card holder.
3] Opponent admits that complainant is a valid account holder of the bank. Hence relation of consumer and service provider is established. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4] Complainant has produced transaction slip, which is on record. The said slip reveals transactions from 10/03/2011 to 19/03/2011. The said slip shows a single transaction of Rs. 10,000/- on 16/03/2011. There is no other transaction of Rs.800/- on 16/03/2011, as alleged by the complainant.
It is seen that there is no allegation from the complainant about the misuse or forgery of ATM card.
5] Considering the pleadings of both the parties, scrutinizing documents, evidence on record, hearing arguments of both the parties, following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows,
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether there is deficiency in service by the opponents? | Yes. |
2. | Whether opponents are responsible for deficiency in service? | Yes. |
3. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
6] The undisputed fact in the present proceeding is that the relation of the complainant and the opponent as a ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ is established. The record of the bank shows that the transaction by withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the saving account
of complainant is correct and successful. The ATM machine at the ATM centre was functioning properly on the day of dispute. The mini transaction slip produced by the complainant do not reveal withdrawal of Rs. 800/- on 16/03/2011.
7] To ascertain, the correctness of the transaction, whether the correct or excess or less amount is transferred , no service is provided by the opponent in the ATM centre, to make it evident. The recording done by CC TV is deficit to focus truth ness of transaction. This amounts to deficiency in service by the opponent. On the other part, complainant instantly contacted the Customer Care, as soon as he came to knew about the wrong transaction. This fact is not denied by the opponent bank. The bank has not supplied information about wrong debit transaction. Complainant himself approached the opponent bank to verify truthfulness of the transaction. All these factors show that the complaint is genuine. This service assured to give clarification within 24 hours, however failed to clarify. This also amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant rightly approached opponent’s office for ascertaining wrong transaction. Thus, complainant has followed all the measures available to him. The opponent by merely denying the allegations made by the complainant can not be discharged from the responsibility of providing effective
services. In the result this Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order.
O R D E R
- Complaint is partly allowed against the opponent.
- It is hereby declared that the opponent
has caused deficiency in service by not
ascertaining the correctness of transaction beyond doubt.
3. Opponent bank is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) towards loss suffered by the complainant, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. Opponent bank is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) towards compensation and cost of the litigation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
6. Parties are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for Members
within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.
