CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.268/11
- Shri Basant Singh Kanwal,
S/o Late Sh.Prem Singh Kanwal,
R/o A-296, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
Tigri,JJ Colony,
New Delhi-110062.
- Jyoti Kanwal
D/o Sh. Basant Singh Kanwal
R/o A-296, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
Tigri,JJ Colony,
New Delhi-110062.
………. Complainants
Vs.
- Oriental Bank of Commerce,
E-Block Connought Place,
New Delhi-110001
- Punjab National Bank
Devli Road Khanpur
New Delhi-110062 …………..Respondents
Date of Order: 19/07/2016
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia-Member
The complaint is regarding illegal withdrawal of money from ATM. The complainant no1 has account with OP no.1. He deputed his daughter, complainant no.2 to withdraw Rs.10,000/-as he was unwell. The complainant was unable to withdraw any money as the said ATM did not work in spite of keying in the pin code. However, the account was debited by Rs.5,000/-. The complainant also alleges that one man was
-2-
inside the ATM booth when she was trying to withdraw the money and there was no security guard for the said ATM Booth. The complainant made a complaint to OP no.2, who directed him to OP no.1. OPs rejected the claim on the ground of successful transaction.
The complainant thereafter went to the mediation centre where all the parties looked into the CD of the Surveillance Camera installed at the ATM premises. The complainant imputes that the CD shows that no money was withdrawn. He further imputes that OP2 had shown withdrawal from defective ATM which is not possible.
OPs have filed their written submission along with the affidavit. The plea taken by OP1 is primarily that complainant No.2 was not allowed the use of ATM card of complainant no.1 as being against banking rules. They have further clarified that the ATM Machine was being operated by OP2 and as transaction was shown completed by OP2 in their JP Log, money was deducted from the complainant’s account.
OP2 reiterates that the above said transaction was duly reflected in JP Log and switch transaction report which are annexed with evidence. OP2 has admitted the proceeding before the Mediation Cell while denying the rest of the complainant.
We have considered the complaint and heard the arguments. We have also seen the recording by the Surveillance Camera placed on record by the complainant. The withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- is being admitted by all the parties and its further confirmed by JP Log and transaction report by OP2. The only issue before us is to considered whether the amount was withdrawn by the complainant. OP2 in its pleading as admitted the proceeding before the Mediation Cell thereby admitting the CD. Though, no reference to the CD or the video recording by the Surveillance Camera has been made in any pleadings by OPs. We viewed the CD annexed with the complaint, it shows that there are two ATM machines. It is clearly seen that complainant no.2 punched in the pin number but no money was forthcoming from the ATM machine. She tried the second ATM machine, no money come out. There was no security guard outside the ATM. However, one person was constantly talking on phone
-3-
throughout the procedure. After Complainant no.2 left the booth, this person withdrew some money and left. The contention of complainant that no security guard was there outside the ATM Booth is proved by the recording. It is further evident from CD that no money was withdrawn by complainant. OP has further placed emphasis on banking rules by which the complainant no.2 was not allowed to withdraw money on the card of complainant no.1. However, the banking rules are neither specified nor placed on record along with the evidence
The OPs have setup namby-mamby to relieve themselves of not providing proper services to the complainant. Turning a blind eye to video recording, which shows that no money was withdrawn, amount to gross dereliction of duty by the bank to its customers. This is the very serious matter in the case of Public Financial Institution, it would show that the laid down procedure not being followed by bank. The shortcoming in services on the part of OPs in not providing adequate security and safe guards for the ATM is clearly established. It is for the banks to look into the complaint and follow up with measures to protect the general public as well as the interest of the bank. This incident was neither unavoidable nor unforeseeable. The presence of security guard, would have prevented multiple people entering the ATM booth at the same time.
In our considered view, OPs have indulged in deficiency in services and direct it to refund Rs. 5,000/- with 9% interest from date of withdraw till payment. We also award Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental trauma and harassment, caused to complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
Let the order to be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
(D.R TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
