Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/310/2014

Sakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Chowdhary, Adv.

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	310 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	18.06.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	25.07.2016

 

 

 

 

Sakshi w/o Sh.Jatin Kumar, R/o House NO.1565, Sector 22, Chandigarh

 

             …….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  ICICI Bank, SCO No.1-2-3, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2]  Oriental Bank of Commerce, SCO No.54-55, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Sub City Center, Sector 34, Chandigarh 160022 through its Manager.

 

3]  State Bank of India, SCO No.54-55, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Sub City Center, Sector 34, Chandigarh 160022 through its Manager.

 

4]  State Bank of Patiala, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager, SCO No.60-61, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

 ………. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

   

 

Argued By: Sh.Satish Chaudhary, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party-1.

Sh.Abhineet Taneja, Counsel for Opposite Party-4.

None for Opposite Parties NO.2 & 3.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant is maintaining bank account NO.001301586401 with Opposite Party No.1-ICICI Bank and also having ATM Card issued against it.  It is averred that the complainant used her ATM Card on 8.8.2012 for the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.1000/-. It is also averred that since she was in Sector 34, Chandigarh, so she visited ATM having ID S10A500752001 and attempted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1000/- at 15:02 but her request was not processed and the message was shown “Sorry Unable to Process Inconvenience is Regretted”.  The complainant visited another ATM Machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce and successfully withdrew an amount ofRs.1000/- at 15:30 PM on 8.8.2012 and also received an SMS to that effect.  However, immediately, the complainant received an SMS with regard to withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- out of her bank account.  The complainant immediately lodged the complaint with the Bank through e-mail (Ann.C-1 colly) and also visited her bank on 9.8.2012 with written request about the disputed transaction (Ann.C-2).  It is also averred that from the statement of accounts, the complainant was shocked to note that there were two successful transactions in her account at a gap of just one second, which is alleged to be clear from Statements of Account Ann.C-3 (colly).  It is alleged that the complainant exchanged numerous e-mails with the bank, but her bank did not made any efforts to resolve the issue of disputed transactions of the complainant nor attempted to put any efforts to obtain video footage from the concerned banks i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce and State Bank of India, to verify the truth of disputed transactions of the complainant.  The matter was also taken with the Banking Ombudsman, but it showed inability to decide the matter for want of documents, evidence etc. and close the complaint of the complainant as per Ann.C-9, dated 4.9.2013.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service, besides claiming other reliefs.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1-ICICI has filed reply and admitted the bank account and issuance of ATM card. It is submitted that the State Bank of India is a single point of contact, in respect of all ATM transactions relating to the consumption of State Banks which includes the State Bank of Patiala. It is also submitted that the disputed transactions have taken place in 3^rd party ATM belonging to said banks and the answering Opposite Party has debited the account of the complainant on the basis of the instructions as has been received from the said banks where the ATM card has been used.  It is pleaded that the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman, who closed the case vide letter dated 4.9.2013 stating that the matter requires consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Banking Ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint. It is also pleaded that the card could not have been used without feeding in the unique pin/password in respect of the card, as has been generated by the customer itself and it cannot be said that the card was not used for making withdrawals as above. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The Opposite Party NO.2-Oriental Bank of Commerce has also filed reply stating therein that no cause of action, as alleged, has arisen in favour of the complainant against Opposite Party No.2 and thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  It is stated that the complainant used the ATM of Opposite Party NO.2 on 8.8.2012 and duly received the amount, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party.  Other allegations have been denied being not related to Opposite Party NO.2 and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

        The Opposite Party NO.3-State Bank of India, did not file any reply and instead, sent letter dated 2.7.2014, addressed to this Forum, stating that this case does not pertains to their branch and the disputed amount has been withdrawn from ATM ID S10A500752001, which belongs to State Bank of Patiala, Sector 34/A.

 

         The Opposite Party NO.4-State Bank of Patiala Bank has filed reply and admitted the factual matrix about complainant having saving account with ICICI bank as well as ATM Card issued against it. It is stated that the complainant on 8.8.2012 used the ATM having ID S10A500752001 and withdrawn Rs.10,000/- and the transaction was successful, which is evident from the ATM transaction list. It is denied that the said transaction was not successful, as alleged. It is also stated that the complainant never approached the answering Opposite Party.  It is denied that the two transactions were done within a fraction of seconds as there was a long gap of 11 minutes between the two transactions.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, Ld.Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 4 and have also perused the record as well as written arguments. However, none appeared on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 to address the arguments on the date fixed.

 

5]       Avoiding reiteration of the facts of the complaint and respective replies of the parties, in nutshell it is gathered that the complainant has disputed her ATM transaction dated 8.8.2012 whereby allegedly an amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from her account, which she never transacted to withdrew.  It is gathered from the record that initially the present complaint was filed by impleading Opposite Party NO.1 as sole party in the present complaint and during the course of proceedings, three more opposite parties were added to the complaint, which were duly served and filed their respective replies.

 

6]       Though the complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegations that as per her account statement, there were two successful transactions in the account of the complainant, dated 8.8.2012 at just a gap of one second by using different ATM machines, which otherwise is impracticable. She also claimed that she transacted only for the withdrawal of Rs.1000/-, which she successfully withdrew from the ATM machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) at 15.30.18.  She claimed that her earlier transaction carried out at 15:02 for the withdrawal of Rs.1000/- remained unsuccessful. Against the allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.4 i.e. State Bank of Patiala vide its reply stated that the transaction for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was successful against the Debit Card of the complainant and also placed on record the record reflecting the same at Page NO.15 at Ann.OP-4/1.  The successful withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- is quite clear, which duly contains the mentioning of the card number as well as account number of the complainant and as well the time of transaction which is 15:19:23, which as per the record, reads as under:-

 

ATMID	CARD NO.	ACCOUNT NO.	TR.DATE	TR.TIME	TR.AMT.
S10A500752001	5359600013011484	001301586401	08-08-12	15:19:23	10000.00

   

7]       The mentioning of the account number of the complainant is found in the body of the complaint, whereas the card number of the complainant is reflected in the letter referred to the complainant, issued by Opposite Party No.1-ICICI Bank where the complainant is having its account.  Thus, it is clear that the above mentioned Card Number and Account Number, mentioned in the record of Opposite Party No.4 belongs to the complainant.  

 

8]       In reference to the above clear cut transaction, there is no dispute left to be decided. 

 

9]       Another factor, which needs to be discussed is that the unsuccessful transaction occurred on 08.8.2012 at 15:02 as alleged by the complainant, pertains to some other account holder having Card No.4181570783006666.  It is very well clear from the documents placed on record by the complainant at Page No.26 of the paper-book (Ann.C-3) that the transaction for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- took place on 15.19 against the Card No.5359600013011484 as well as Account No.001301586401 of the complainant in the present complaint. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OPs as the complainant failed to establish her case.

 

10]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that complaint deserves dismissal.  Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th July, 2016                                     

                                           Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER