Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/852/2015

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sharma

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/852/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	21/12/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	12/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Sandeep S/o Jodh Singh, R/o H.no.217, Sec. 23-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

[1]  IDBI Bank Limited, IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400005, through its Chief Executive.

 

[2]  IDBI Bank, SCO 55-56-57, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

[3]  National Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 332-333-334, Sector 34-A, Sub City Centre, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

[4]  National Insurance Co. Limited, 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700071, through its Chief Executive.

 

…… Opposite Parties  

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Deepankur Sharma, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 & 2	:	Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate.
For OP Nos.3 & 4	:	Sh. G.D. Gupta, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant was maintaining S/B Account No.003104000208567 with the OP Bank at its Sector 8 Branch, Chandigarh. It has been averred that on 14.02.2015, the Complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the aforesaid account, through his ATM-cum-Debit Card, after which the balance shown in the account was Rs.1,76,098/-. Thereafter, the Complainant tried to operate his debit card on the same night and also on 16.02.2015, but the transaction was denied. However, to his utter surprise, on 18.02.2015, he found that someone had unauthorizedly withdrawn Rs.1,76,000/- from his aforesaid account at Orissa and there was a balance of Rs.38/- only. Therefore, the Complainant, narrating the whole sequence, wrote a letter dated 18.02.2015 to the Opposite Party No.2 with a request to refund his money. The OP Bank, thereafter, forwarded the aforesaid request to the Opposite Party No.3. However, the Opposite Party No.3 declined to entertain the claim of the Complainant in a mechanical manner. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

   

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have stated that the Complainant himself ignored the transaction committed through his ATM card, irrespective the fact that Complainant had received SMS on his registered mobile number for each transaction, he himself kept mum and not reacted to any transaction which made him suffer loss of the amount in question and now he has lay the whole blame upon the answering Opposite Parties who have nothing to do with the transaction without objection of the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 in their reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have stated that the present episode has occurred due to the gross negligence of the Complainant himself, in as much as the Complainant did not act prudently and diligently, which amounted to breach of the Policy terms & conditions of reasonable care as he failed to take immediate action of intimation of loss to the Bank or to the Insurer, resulting in delay in hot listing. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to any indemnity under the policy of insurance. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

7.     We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Parties and also perused the record, along with the written arguments, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.     On perusal of the Surveyor Report, placed on record by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, we find that the Surveyor, in his survey report dated 28.4.2015, has emphatically observed in para 14 that “In our opinion the above loss is genuine and the loss has occurred in Orissa from counterfeit card of the customer ATM whereas at the time of loss he was at Chandigarh and without knowledge of the customer”. In this backdrop, one thing is apparent that when the Surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 themselves to surveyed the loss and once they (OPs No.3 & 4) had admitted the claim of the Complainant, denial thereof, in a purely mechanical manner vide letter dated 01.10.2015, putting the whole blame on the Complainant, is nothing but an act of rendering deficient services to the Complainant and their indulgence into unfair trade practice. We are of the concerted opinion that the Complainant certainly needs to be indemnified the loss of Rs.1,76,098/-, along with compensation towards mental harassment and agony suffered by him at the hands of the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4. 

 

9.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To indemnity the Complainant to the tune of Rs.1,76,098/-;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

10.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

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

Announced

12^th July, 2017                                  Sd/-     

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                           Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER