Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/501/2019

Mukesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

D.P Soni

20 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         : 501 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           : 24.12.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    : 20.11.2023.

 

Mukesh Kumar son of Sh.Mahavir Parshad resident of village Badopal Tehsil & District, Fatehabad.

                                        ……. Complainant.                           Versus

 

1.Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dharmshala Road, Fatehabad.

2.ICICI Bank Limited, Ellanbad District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.  

 

….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER                  

                   SMT. HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER     

 

Present:       Sh. D.P.Soni, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. P.K.Zora, counsel for Op No.1.                                                            Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, counsel for Op No.2.                               

 

ORDER:

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                             Brief facts of the present compliant are that the complainant is maintaining saving bank account No.01462043000094 with OP No.1; that on 12.01.2019, the complainant used the ATM for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-at the ATM booth of ICICI Bank, Elnabad, Sirsa but he could not receive the amount; that he received a massage from Ops regarding entering of wrong pin; that the complainant is also having saving bank account No.30366458495 at State Bank of Inida Main Branch Fatehabad and the complainant used the ATM attached to this account in the same booth and for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-; that transaction remained successful and he received Rs.10,000/- on next attempt and regarding this he received a massager at 5.32 PM; that at 5.40 P.M. he received massage from OP no.1 regarding non-withdrawal of amount  but again he received a massage at 6.46 P.M. regarding successful withdrawal of  Rs.10,000/- despite the fact that the amount from the account maintained by him with Ops was not released/withdrawn; that  the complainant lodged his complaint No.190116160846 dated 16.01.2019 with Ops and requested for providing video clips; that on the asking of bank officials the complainant got deducted Rs.590/- as arbitration fees and the matter was recommended to the Arbitrator; that the Arbitrator without hearing the  complainant decided the matter and opined that there was successful transaction qua withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-; that the complainant requested the Ops and even got served notice for refunding Rs.10,000/- but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  

2.                          Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its separate reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, estoppal and jurisdiction etc. It has been further submitted that on 12.01.2019, Rs.10,000/- was debited from the account No.01462043000094 of the complainant  being withdrawn through ATM; that on the complaint and request of the complainant, the matter was referred for Arbitration in the penal of Arbitrators. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and concealment of material facts from this Commission etc. It has been further submitted that  as per records, transaction of  withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- remained successful; that the replying OP also received pre-arbitration on 04.02.2019 which was declined on 10.02.2019; that further in Arbitration proceedings the matter was closed in favour of  replying Op on 22.03.2019; that due to repeated requests and queries the matter was rechecked and in the record transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was found successful being fully paid and no excess cash was  even reported; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit   Ex.CW1/A  alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/A and Annexure R2/B.

5.                          We have heard counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                         Before approaching this Commission, on the request of the complainant, the matter was referred to Ombudsman. In the report (Annexure C5) the penal of Arbitrators (Annexure C4)  have given the observation, which is as under:

The Office examined the facts and submissions made by both the parties. On scrutiny of the EJ it has been observed that the transaction was done at 17.31 hrs using OBC Card and was successful with response code 000. The acquirer bank also provided the CCTV images and a person was seen collecting cash at 17.31 hrs. hence, the complaint was closed under Clause 13 (a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 which states that a compliant may be rejected by the Banking Ombudsman, at any, stage, if it appears to him that the compliant made is not on the grounds referred to in Clause 8 or otherwise not in accordance with Sub Clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme ibid. As the closure under Clause 13 (a) does not provide for an appeal to the appellate authority, the complainant is free to approach any other Forum such as Consumer Form etc. if he so desires, for redressal of his complaint.

In this very document, it has also been mentioned that ICICI Bank provided the EJ, Switch Report, Cash Tally, IBR and CCTV footage and informed that the disputed transaction was successful.    

7.                          Undisputedly, the complainant was given liberty to approach Consumer Commissions/Forum for redressal of his grievance but it is worthwhile to mention here that the Ombudsman had reached at the conclusion that the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was successful and regarding this all the relevant record such as Switch Report, Cash Tally, IBR and CCTV footage  were perused and taken into consideration.  The record which was scrutinized by the Ombudsman before reaching the conclusion that the transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was successful, therefore, at this stage it was for the complainant to summon such record by way of filing application before this Commission. Learned counsel for the complainant has tried to convince this Commission by relying upon document Annexure C6 i.e. application written to the Ombudsman for providing the CCTV Footage and other relevant record but there is nothing on the case file to show that as to on what mode the application was ever sent to the Ombudsman and it is strange that the complainant has never approached to the Ops for providing such evidence.  As per the complainant the dispute arises only on 12.01.2019 and regarding this complaint was lodged with the bank on 16.01.2019 (Annexure C1) but it does not show that any request for providing CCTV footage/ any other related document was ever made.  Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has produced the Cash Tally Certificate (Annexure R2/B) on the case file. Perusal of this document clearly shows that cash is tallied and there is no overage.  It is not the case of the complainant that the officials of the Ops were inimical to him and have motive to cause loss to him. The Cash tally certificate (Annexure R2/B) was placed on file on 17.04.2023 and the complainant was having ample opportunity to counter the same by producing clinching evidence but he did not do so, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the findings given by the ombudsman (Annexure C5) qua successful transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- are in order and were made after taking into consideration the relevant record of the matter in question.

8.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  Application, if any, pending on the case file, needs not to be dealt with further and same is hereby disposed of. This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission:                                                           Dated:20.11.2023

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President