Delhi

North East

CC/257/2017

SH. CHARAN SINGH NAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 257/17

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Charan Singh Nagar C2/328 Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. C1/19A Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER :

08.08.17 13.07.22 06.09.22

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

          Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

      Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that the Complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3,500/- from Opposite Party bank ATM at C9 Market, Yamuna Vihar on 19.07.17 vide term no. 284431. The Complainant stated that the said amount was withdrawn from Opposite Party bank ATM but one of the Rs.500/- currency note was badly stapled and mutilated. The Complainant stated that he had informed the bank manager about the stapled and mutilated currency note telephonically and the manager had assured him that the currency note will be changed after his visit to the bank. The Complainant submitted that he had visited the Opposite Party bank on 20.07.17 and gave an application for changing the currency note in question. The manager stated that the procedure of changing the currency note will take about 48 hours. The Complainant stated that he had again visited the Opposite Party bank on 25.07.17 and the officials of Opposite Party again asked him to come after 3-4 days of stating that there is a technical issue and the procedure will take time to change the currency note. The Complainant that on 26.07.17, he received a telephone call from the person who assured him that he is the authorized person from Opposite Party bank and speaking from head office of Opposite Party bank and requested him to visit to change the currency note in question. The Complainant stated that on 31.07.17 the Complainant visited the Opposite Party bank and stated that he had talked to official of Opposite Party bank but the manager of Opposite Party bank denied to change the currency note. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Party bank to change his currency note. He has also prayed for compensation on account of mental harassment along with litigation expenses.

      Case of Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement to          the complaint of the Complainant. It is stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3500/- form its ATM at Yamuna Vihar on 19.07.17. Its case is that the stapled currency note cannot be dispensed by ATM. It is stated that as per the instruction of RBI mutilated, torn cannot be accepted by the bank.  It is prayed that complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed.

      Rejoinder to written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party and has denied the averments made in the complaint. The Complainant has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the parties

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. The Opposite Party in support of its case has filed the affidavit of            Shri  Hirdesh Singh, Chief Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch situated at 4^th floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. In his affidavit he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments and conclusion

5. We have already heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3,500/- from the ATM of the Opposite Party. It is his case that one currency note of Rs. 500/- which was dispensed by the ATM was stapled and mutilated. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that stapled/mutilated/torn currency note cannot be dispensed by the ATM.
6. The first thing which is to be seen is that whether in fact a stapled/mutilated/torn currency note was dispensed by the ATM while the Complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 3,500/- from the ATM. In this regard, it is important to note that the Complainant has not produced the original currency note to show that it was stapled/mutilated/torn. No reason has been assigned by the Complainant for the same. Further it is the case of the Opposite Party is that it is not possible for the ATM to dispense the stapled/mutilated/torn currency note and this fact has been supported by the affidavit of the Opposite Party. On the other hand, the Complainant has not produced any evidence to the contrary.
7. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly.
8. Order announced on 06.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President