ORDER                                         Dated:  17.10.2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant has filed this complaint on 09-06-2015 and
alleged that he has a  bank account with OP1 and on 18.03.2015 he
approached the ATM of OPs  to withdraw an amount of Rs. 15,000/- but
he did not received the said amount  and the same was confirmed to be
debited from his account.  Complainant  vide complaint no. A008811319
filed the complaint regarding the deduction of amount  to OPs and
after 2 weeks OPs furnished the complainant with details of the said
transaction.   OPs  apprised him   that   the  said transaction was
successful and his complaint is being closed.  On 26.03.2015 and
30.3.2015 complainant made several emails to the ATM cell of OPs  but
OPs failed to respond.  Complainant vide letter dated  10.04.2015
again  made a complaint to OP1 but  OPs failed to redress his
grievances. Hence , this complaint with a prayer that OPs be directed
to refund Rs. 15,000/-  and to pay  Rs. 20,000/- as mental agony and
Rs.  1,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.     In reply,  OP1 did not deny that complainant has a bank account
with it. It admitted that  complainant  made complaint to  OP1 on
19.03.2015 i.e on the next day of the said transaction.  OP1 further
admitted that  letters dated 10.4.2015 and 28.04.2015 was acknowledged
by it and denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and
prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3.     The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and
explained that the objections filed by OPs are baseless. In support of
his complaint, complainant filed his own affidavit .

4.     In support of reply,  OP1 filed affidavit of Ashok Kumar Gogia
 ( chief manager) with copy of letter dated 06.05.2015 (Ex. OP1-A) ,
copy of letter dated 15-05-2015 (Ex. OP1-B).

5.     Both the parties filed their written arguments.

6.     We have considerd the arguments and considered the evidence led
by the OP1.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

   (a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

    (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP1?

    (c) Relief?

7.     As OP1 admitted that complainant  has  an account in the branch
of OP1 hence complainant is a consumer.

8.     In this case, complainant was not present since 20.1.2016,
15.02.2016 , 19.04.2016, 19.05.2015, 19.07.2016 ,23.08.2016 and
14.10.2016 and he failed to file his evidence on these dates. On the
other hand, OP1 in his reply as well as in the affidavit of Mr. Ashok
Kumar Gogia (chief Manager ) filed  who  deposed that the transaction
of the complainant was successful and OP1 vide its letter dated
06.05.2015 informed complainant that his



transaction was successful.  As the evidence led by the OP1 is
unrebutted and complainant failed to produce any evidence in support
of his complaint, therefore, deficiency in service of service on the
part of OP1 is not proved.

9.     Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of
the considered opinion that deficiency in service against OPs is not
proved and the present complaint is dismissed accordingly.

10.                          Copy of the order be made available to
the parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.

   Announced on this ………………