Delhi

East Delhi

CC/78/2017

SANJAY KR. CHOUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2019

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. 78/17

 

SANJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY,

S/O SHIV CHANDAN CHAUDHARY,

R/O H.NO. G-1, VILLAGE-GAZIPUR,

1448859.  
1448860.  

Vs

 

1. THE MANAGER

A-31, ICICI BANK,

BRANCH MAIN VIKASH MARG Extn.

1.  

 

2. THE MANAGER,

ATM OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,

GAZIPUR DAIRY FARM,

1.  

                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 21.02.2017

Judgment Reserved for: 11.10.2019

Judgment Passed on: 18.10.2019

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                           (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, the complainant, against The Manager, ICICI Bank (OP-1) and Manager of SBI (OP-2).

Facts necessary for the disposal of the complaint are that the complainant has been maintaining the account with ICICI Bank, OP-1 main Vikas Marg Extension. On 25.07.2016, the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- by using his debit card from the ATM of SBI, Branch Ghazipur, Extension (OP-2). No money was dispensed, however, Rs.10,000/- were debited from the account of complainant. OP-1 was informed on 27.07.2016, where the complainant was told that the case had been transferred to the customer care for necessary action. The complainant approached OP-2 also, where he was informed that the claim would be settled by the complainant’s bank i.e. OP-1. The matter could not be settled at the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Patparganj.

It has been stated by the complainant that despite several personal visits his grievance was not addressed and he had filed complaint to Police Station, Ghazipur on 15.12.2016, but no action had been taken. Hence, the present complaint with prayer for direction to OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental agony.

The complainant has annexed the copy of the pass book of the account maintained with OP-1, complaint dated 15.12.2016 to Police Station Ghazipur, complaint dated 27.07.2016 to the Manager of OP-1 and Mediation and Conciliation report with the complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs.

Written statement was filed by OP-1, where they have taken several objections such as that no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complaint and the complaint was false and frivolous. It was submitted that the complainant was wholly responsible for transaction entered through ATM Card. It was further submitted that as per EJ Roll provided by OP-2, the transaction was successful, thus, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- had been rightly debited and it was OP-2 who had rejected the claim of the complainant. As the complainant’s grievance had been duly addressed, no deficiency in service could be alleged against them. They have also denied the rest of the contents of the complaint.

They have annexed EJ Log with the reply as Annexure OP1/1, letter dated 02.02.2017 to the complainant as Annexure OP1/2 and reply to the banking Ombudsman.

OP-2 did not appear despite service, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

Replication was filed by the complainant to the written statement of OP-1, where he has reiterated the contents of his complaint and denied those of the written statement.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint. He has stated that the executive of OP-1 had informed that the claim of the complainant would be settled as per RBI Guidelines. He has got exhibited the copy of the complaint before Manager of RBI as Ex. CW1/A 9 (colly), copy of the replication is exhibited as Ex. CW1/B; copy of the complaint SHO, Police Station (Ghazipur) date 15.12.2016 as Ex. CW1/C, copy of the ATM withdrawal slip dated 25.07.2016 as Ex. CW1/D, statement of account as Ex. CW1/E and complaint to Manager of RBI vide complaint dated 24.08.2016 has been exhibited as Ex. CW1/F.

Ms. Akriti Mishra, Manager Legal was examined on behalf of OP-1, she reiterated the contents of their written statement, she has deposed that since the transaction was successful the amount debited from the account of the complainant was justified. Therefore, no deficiency in service could be alleged against them. She has relied upon EJ Roll provided by OP-2 showing the transaction to be successful as Annexure OP-1/1, reply to the complaint as Annexure OP-1/2, reply to Banking Ombudsman as Annexure OP-1/3.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and counsel for OP-1. We have also perused the material placed on record. The grievance of the complainant is that his account had been debited by Rs.10,000/-on account of withdrawal by using ATM of OP-2, while no money was dispensed. In defence OP-1 has relied upon the EJ roll, which is stated to be shared by OP-2, wherein the transaction of the complainant was successful. We have gone through the written statement filed on behalf of OP-1 as well as the evidence, no where the transaction number has been mentioned. Even otherwise, if we look at Annexure OP-1/1, EJ roll it is seen that the transaction in dispute is of date 25.07.2016 time 12:31 hours which was done using card no. 5126520137069550 with transaction no. 6827. The account no. mentioned is 41XXXXXXXXXXX539 similarly for transaction no. 6828 which is balance inquiry also pertains to the same account. On the other hand the account number maintained by complainant with OP-1 is 033001518064. Therefore, the transaction, which is stated to be successful does not pertain to the account maintained by the complainant.  

Therefore, the EJ roll relied upon by OP-1 has no sanctity and does not pertain to the transaction in dispute. Further, no cash reconciliation report and switch report has been placed on record to show that the transaction was successful. As OP-2 chose not to appear, the allegations leveled against them have remained unrebutted. Non settlement of the disputed transaction, stating to be successful by OP-2 amounts to deficiency in services.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct OP-2 to refund Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @6% from the date of debit i.e. 25.07.2016 till realization. The complainant is further entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

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