Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/713

AXIS BANK LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 11.05.2016

First Appeal No. 713/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 04.06.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 732/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23 Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

Axis Bank Ltd.

2A & B Khan Market

New Delhi-110003    

through its VP & & Branch Head                                   .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Sh. Mohan Singh

353, Sector-4

•  

New Delhi-110022                                                 ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.     Appellant has impugned the orders dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum II, New Delhi-110016. Vide said orders the complaint was allowed and the following directions were passed:

“OP to recredit the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively) in the saving bank account of the complainant. Besides, OP shall also pay bank interest on the said amount for the period of 04.09.2009 till it is recredited. We further direct OP bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental tension and financial harassment to the complainant.”

 

2.     Para 8 of the impugned orders gives a clear picture of the facts and reasons of the judgment. The same is hence reproduced below:

“On giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the banks to safeguard the interest of the customers in their financial transactions and make them assure that while making financial transactions through electronic mode, no fraudulent transaction is made by such mode and moreover the banks are also duty bound to provide all the necessary details regarding the transaction including CCTV footages to the customers, on their demand when such kind of dispute comes in light, as in present matter. Undisputedly, in the present matter also even on specific request of the complainant, OP has failed to provide the CCTV footages to the complainant to satisfy himself from the transactions alleged by him. Such act and conduct of the OP gives rise to an inference that there is a chance of such misuse of the ATMs by the fraudsters. We could not understand as to why OP bank failed to get the CCTV footage provided to the complainant from the Canara Bank, whose ATM was used by the complainant in this case and more so, when complainant had such like mis-happening prior to this incident also. When the OP bank was very much sure that there was no fault on its part or on the part of ATM of Canara Bank, then why did it reversed/credited this amount when complainant lodged its protest against the misuse of ATM. In such situation, we hold OP as guilty for deficiency of service and direct OP to recredit the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively) in the saving bank account of the complainant. Besides, OP shall also pay bank interest on the said amount for the period of 04.09.2009 till it is recredited. We further direct OP bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental tension and financial harassment to the complainant.”

 

3.     I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Dharam Dev Advocate and the Respondent (in person).
4.     Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that admittedly a similar episode of illegal withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- from the bank account of the respondent/complainant took place on 17.08.2009. On a complaint of the respondent/complainant, the appellant i.e. Axis Bank Ltd. had reversed the said withdrawal and the amount was credited to the account of the complainant. To make the facts more clear, on both the occasions i.e. the episode in question and the one that happened on 17.08.2009, it was the ATM of Canara Bank where the transaction took place. Earlier complaint dated 17.08.2009 was however redressed by the appellant i.e. Axis Bank Ltd. after corresponding with the Canara Bank. There is no difference in the modus operandi of both the transactions. Having once come across an illegal withdrawal, the appellant and the Canara Bank both ought have become more vigilant and record the CCTV footage. Complainant in the present case had demanded CCTV footage on both the occasions. He was never provided with the same. Simple plea of the appellant that without sharing the pin number with a third person no withdrawal of money can take place, is devoid of merits. It is a matter of common knowledge that a large number of illegal transactions are taking place even when the customers have not shared the pin code number of their ATM card with anyone. This bald plea does not help the appellant in any manner. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merits.
5.     Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
6.     FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)