Delhi

East Delhi

CC/319/2013

VIVEK KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.319/13

Shri VIVEK KUMAR,

S/O Shri SHASHIKANT SINHA,

R/O 262-B, ASHA RAM GALI,

C/O BHARTA RAM GALI,

MANDAWALI, FAZALPUR,

1.  

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

 

•  

 

1. THE MANAGER,

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,

BRANCH AT: LAXMI NAGAR,

1.  

 

2. THE MANAGER,

AXIS BANK

BRANCH AT: SWASTHYA VIHAR,

PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092

ATM BRANCH

MADHUBAN, DELHI110092

                                                                                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 01.05.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 06.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 17.11.2017

 

CORUM:

Shri SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY:  HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by Shri Vivek kumar, against The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce (OP-1), and The Manager, Axis Bank (OP-2), with the allegations of deficiency in services.
2. The facts of the present complaint are that complainant having saving bank account with OP-1 vide account no. 04882011004613 for which an ATM card was issued bearing no. 4357089407564537. On 01.11.2012, the complainant tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- by using ATM of OP-2 but the said amount was not dispensed  by the machine. It has been stated that the “cancel” button of the ATM was also not working. The complainant tried to withdraw Rs. 10,000/- from another ATM where he was shocked to see that Rs. 10,000/- had already been debited from his account. OP-1 was informed vide complaint no. 64371/2012 but his claim was dismissed. The complainant has stated that his grievance was not addressed on time and OPs delayed on one pretext or the others. It has been further stated by the complainant that security guard of OP-2 was also informed with respect to the non receipt of amount. Hence, the present complaint seeking direction to OPs to redeposit Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses.
3. Complainant has annexed E-mail dated 12.11.2012, pre arbitration complaint dated 30.11.2012, copy of the statement of account maintained by the complainant with the complaint.
4. Reply was filed on behalf of OPs on receipt of the notice of the present complaint. Where the OP-1 has taken the defence that no deficiency in service can be attributed to OP-1, as upon the receipt of the complaint by the complainant, same was immediately forwarded to OP-2. It was stated that as per OP-2 the transaction was successful. It was further submitted that OP-1 had informed the complainant to approach OP-2 within 30 days as per guidelines of National Payment Corporation of India, he failed to avail the same. OP has stated that the complainant had approached Banking OMBUDSMAN vide complaint no. 201213014003981 on 04.12.2012, where also it was held that the said transaction was apparently successful, even in the order passed by Banking OMBUDSMAN it was held as the present complaint required investigation, elaborate documentary and oral evidence, to the complaint cannot be entertained. Order of Banking OMBUDSMAN has been annexed as Annexure A.
5.  OP-2 in their written statement stated that the complainant was not a consumer qua then, hence, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP-2. It was submitted that as per documents/reports transaction was successful, thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed on their part and have annexed JP Log, Switch Report, Reconciliation Report, cash balance report and EJ log with the reply.
6. Rejoinder was filed to the written statement filed on behalf of OP-1, wherein it was stated that the complainant by opening the saving account “Buys” the service of OP-1 and with the approval of OP-1 used his ATM card in the ATM of OP-2 and as per RBI Guidelines after five transactions per month additional charges were applicable to be paid for ATM usage. It was stated that CCTV footage was not available which would have been an evidence to establish the truth.
7. The complainant has annexed three pre-arbitration complaints, complaint to Banking OMBUDSMAN dated 05.12.2012 and its order with the rejoinder.

Evidence by way of affidavit filed on behalf of complainant and reiterated the contents of the complaint. OP-1 examined Sh. D.V. Nagar, Chief Manager of OP-1,  wherein they reiterated the contents of the reply and have exhibited the copy of the General Power of Attorney as Ex.OPw-1/A and copy of the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by banking OMBUDSMAN as Ex.OPW-1/B.

8. OP-2 examined Shri Narender Kumar Bhasin, Vice President and Branch Head of OP-2 who reiterated the contents of their reply and has got exhibited ATM Log/ EJ copy, ATM cash balancing report, ATM Reconciliation report, ATM Cash Dispensation Elaborate Report, ATM Switch report and No Excess Cash Certificate as Ex. R-1 (Colly). 
9. We have heard the arguments on behalf of complainant and Ld. Counsels for OP-1 & OP-2 and have perused the material placed on record, the complainant has disputed the transaction for Rs. 10,000/- was unsuccessful even then his account was debited. On the other hand OP-1 has stated that the transactions as per records filed by OP-2 was successful, therefore, the account of the complainant was rightly debited. OP-2 has also reiterated the same and has placed documents such as EJ Log, cash reconciliation statement, ATM cash balancing report etc. These all are computer generated documents which cannot be tampered or manipulated, once according to these documents the transaction was successful then we cannot hold OPs guilty of deficient in services. Hence, OP-1 has rightly debited the A/C of the complainant and OP-2 has successfully discharged the onus that the transaction was successful. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

     (Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                        (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                                   

             MEMBER                                                                                           MEMBER

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT