Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1125/2013

AMIT GROVER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jan 2018

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. 1125/13

Shri AMIT GROVER

S/O LATE SHRI LAKKHI RAJ GROVER

R/O 13/368-A, 1^ST FLOOR, GEETA COLONY,

1.  

 

 

Vs

 

 

1. ICICI BANK

ATM OFFICE BALCO MARKET,

MADHU VIHAR, PATPARGANJ

1.  

 

THROUGH ITS CONCERNED MANAGER

 

2. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

LAL QUARTER, KRISHNA NAGAR,

1.  

                                                                                                                        ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 16.01.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 12.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 18.01.2018

 

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint pertains to allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services against OP-1 (ICICI Bank) and OP-2 (The Punjab National Bank).
2. The facts of the present complaint are that on 10.12.2013, the complainant tried to withdraw money by using ATM bearing no.SICW3284 of OP-1 which was without any security guard. The complainant tried to withdraw Rs.500/- by using ATM of OP-1 which was stopped working, despite waiting for some time the money was not dispensed, so, the complainant tried to cancel the process which could not be cancelled, as the said ATM had stopped working. So, the complainant tried, to withdraw the said amount from the adjacent ATM of the OP-1 bearing No. SICW6019 fitted in the same cabin and his transaction was successful. It has been stated that the slip issued by ATM no. SICW6019 reflected the correct balance thereon. It has further been stated that one cheque bearing no. 065178 for Rs.10,000/- issued by the complainant to MGF Auto limited was presented with OP-2, the complainant in order to verify the same went to OP-2’s ATM, where he found that Rs.10,000/- had been withdrawn from ATM No. SICW3284 of OP-1. Complainant lodged a complaint with SHO Madhu Vihar against fraud committed by someone on 10.12.2013 and the complaint dated 11.12.2013 was also submitted with OP-2, but no action has been taken till date.  Therefore the present complaint praying for direction to OP-1 to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as compensation of mental pain, agony, and harassment.

The complainant has annexed the complaint dated 10.12.2013 to Police Station Madhu Vihar and complaint dated 11.12.2013 to the Manager of OP-2.

3. After service of summons, OP-1 filed their reply, wherein they took the plea that the present complaint was devoid of merits as the complainant had not filed single documents with the complaint to suggest that OP-1 had failed to take any action of his request of refund. It was submitted that the PIN number was only known to the person who had been issued the ATM Card. In this case the transaction was not possible without the knowledge of PIN which was only known to the complainant. It was further submitted that as the investigation was in progress in the complaint lodged by the complainant in the Police Station, hence, the cause of action was premature. It was also submitted that as the instant complaint required proper and thorough investigation and trial which could not be decided in summary proceedings. It was submitted that after investigation of records pertaining to the transaction, it was found that the alleged transaction was successful and amount of Rs.10,000/- had been disbursed to the complainant. Hence, no deficiency in service could be alleged against them.  OP has submitted that as per EJ Log, Switch Report, Cash Reconciliation Report, the transaction was successful. Hence, the question of refund of money of the complaint did not arise. It was stated that the time of the disputed transaction is concerned, it was 20:29 hours therefore the averment of the complainant that his cheque of Rs.10,000/- was not honored by his Bank on 10.12.2013, was false and frivolous, as in the complaint made to the Bank on 11.12.2013 the time of  transaction has been mentioned as 8:30 p.m. which is after working hours of the bank which are i.e. 9 am to 4 am. Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.

EJ Log, Switch Report, Cash Reconciliation Report, has been annexed as Annexure R-1/1, R-1/2, and R-1/3 respectively.

4. Thereafter the complainant stopped appearing and did not file his evidence by way of affidavit. However OP-1 got examined Shri Sanjay Sharma, Manager Legal, who has reiterated the contents of the reply and has got exhibited EJ Log as RW-1/1, Switch Report as RW-1/2, Cash Reconciliation Report as RW-1/3.
5. As the complainant had stopped appearing, and we have heard the submission on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has alleged that his account was debited by Rs.10,000/- on 10.12.2013 despite the fact that he had not conducted that transaction. He has also not placed any documents apart from two complaints dated 10.12.2012 to Police Station Madhu Vihar and 11.12.2013 to his Bank i.e. OP-2 which do not substantiate his complaint. However the complainant failed to file his evidence by way of affidavit, hence, he has failed to prove the averments in the complaint. Hence the present complaint is dismissed for non prosecution and being devoid of any merit without order of cost.

            Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

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

       MEMBER                                                                                      MEMBER              

 

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT