Delhi

East Delhi

CC/223/2013

ABDUL AZIZ - Complainant(s)

Versus

ING VAISHYA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

16 Oct 2017

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         223/2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                14/03/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               16/10/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        17/10/2017  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr Abdul Aziz, adult   

S/o Sh Abdul Hafiz

R/o-B 85, Ayur Vugyan Nagar, New Delhi....………..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

1- ING Vaishya Bank,

    East of Kailash Branch,   

    E-220 & E 221, East of Kailash

    New Delhi 110065

 

2-The Deutsch Bank

    ECE House,

    28, K G Marg, New Delhi …..…..……………………………………….Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                    

                   

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant had a saving bank account vide no. 50483462601002109 with OP1/ING Vaishya Bank and also had ATM card vide no. 5048xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx5006. He had balance in his saving account also of Rs 38,662/-on dated 02/11/2012 as annexed bank pass book (Annexure C-1).  

The complainant tried to withdrew a sum of Rs 10,000/- from OP2/Deutsh Bank’s ATM at Jasola Style Mall on 02/11/2012, but could not get the cash and even after trying number of times did not get the cash, but got massage from OP1 that sum of Rs 10,000/- had been debited from the account of complainant, so he immediately complained to OP1 customer care number from where got assurance that after 72 hour amount would be reversed. When he did not get any response, he wrote complaint to OP1 on 15/11/2012 (Annexure C2).  

Later he got information through EJR from ATM record center that the amount was successfully debited from ATM (Annexure C3). Due to deficient act and services of Bank /OP1, he suffered financial loss and mental agony. So filed this complaint stating that he was a bona fide account holder of OP1 (having bank at East of Kailash, New Delhi) and prayed this Forum had territorial jurisdiction for refund of debited amount Rs 10,000/-in his account with Rs 40,000/-as compensation for mental agony and Rs 5500/- as litigation charges.

 

Notices were served. Both the OP submitted written statement separately. OP1 denied for any deficiency on their part. It was stated that complainant had filed this complaint beyond the jurisdiction of Forum as OP 1 had its branch at East of Kailash South Delhi and OP2 at KG Marg, New Delhi so complaint be dismissed under Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act (in short Act) besides complainant not entitled for any relief/damages.

It was admitted by OP1 that as per EJR (Electronic Journal Report) (Ex OPW1/R1), complainant had tried to withdraw the amount from 19:32:20 to 19:35:03 hours for six times, but could not withdraw the amount as invalid amount was entered. At 19:35:53 hours, cash was withdrawn  from his account A/c 50483466010022109 a sum of Rs. 10,000/-and simultaneously information was given on his mobile number also (Anne. R1). It was also denied that OP1 had ever said for reversal of amount within 72 hours.  OP2 submitted their written statement and denied all the allegations against them. It was stated that as per their EJR record, it clearly showed successful withdrawal of Rs 10,000/- against the ATN card of complainant (Anne. OPW2/A) and closing balance sheet of their ATM no. DEU0 213 (Anne. OPW2/B and C) also tallied as no surplus amount was present with response code double zero (00). It was stated that their ATM was working in perfect manner and had not received any complaint. So, this frivolous complaint be dismissed.

Complainant did not file his rejoinder, but filed an application for getting more documents under Section 13(4) (i) & (ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Ex CW1/4).

OP2 submitted the reply of the application (CW1/4) and filed all the related documents as asked by complainant (Anne. OP W2/ C-5 to 33) and also submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mrs. Navnidhi Gaur, w/o Mr. Dharmesh Gaur, AR of OP2 and reaffirmed on oath that all the replies and contents were true and correct and the same had been submitted and were on record. OP1 submitted its evidences on affidavit through Mr Vishwa Nath Purohit, AR of OP1 and affirmed on oath that all the contents were correct and true and had been submitted on record. Complainant filed evidences on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and contents of his complaint were correct and nothing had been hidden.  

Arguments were heard from the counsels of OP1 and OP2 as complainant did not put his appearance on the date of arguments. After perusing earlier dates of appearance since 04/06/2015, complainant did not put his appearance in person or through his representative also despite of serving notices number of times. Even on the date of argument, neither complainant put his appearance for argument date nor submitted his written arguments. So, the file was perused and order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was noted that the complainant had raised issue of deficiency on services of OPs, but could not prove or establish even on a single evidence that OPs were deficient in their services. After seeing the EJR, which are internal record generated data of ATM, in this case showed that the transaction of Rs 10,000/- was successful against complainant’s ATM card having code double zero (00). This was too corroborated with the balance sheet of OP2 of their ATM that no surplus amount was left in the ATM at the end of the day when refilling with cash was done. So, there was no deficiency in services of OP1 and 2. 

Thus, we come to the conclusion that there are no merit in this complaint and deserve to be dismissed. So, this complaint is dismissed without any cost to order.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Regulation 20 of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari – Member                                                                           Sukhdev Singh - President