Delhi

North West

CC/1038/2015

DIN DAYAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/1038/2015
( Date of Filing : 09 Sep 2015 )
 
1. DIN DAYAL SHARMA
HNO.B-163 GALI NO.13,SAROOP NAGAR,SHIV MANDIR ROAD DELHI-110042
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
BRANCH MANAGER A-72,SWROOP NAGAR SHIV MANDIR ROAD DELHI-110042
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 26 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

SANJAY KUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

  1. The facts of the complaint is that the complaint is having an account in the bank of OP vide account no.  6584000100006329. On 30.07.2015 the complainant visited OP Bank for depositing Rs.20,000.00 and he got surprised when he checked/verified the account balance & found that the withdrawal of Rs.1,20,220.00 has been made from his account without his knowledge.
  2. It is alleged by the complainant that he  never visited ATM for aforesaid transaction.  As per the account statement, the first transaction of Rs. 45,100/-was done on dated 27.07.2015 and transaction of Rs.25,000.00 done on 28.07.2015 & another transaction of Rs.25,060 on 29.07.2015 & last transaction of Rs.25,060.00 on 30.07.2015. The total amount withdrawn from his account  was Rs.1,20,220.00.
  3. It is alleged by the complainant that the maximum withdrawal limit for each transaction through ATM is of Rs. 25,000/-, however, the suspected person withdrawn Rs.45,000.00 on 27.07.2015.
  4. It is alleged by the complainant  that he lodged the complaint with OP bank on 30.07.2015 vide complaint no. AO15228332, AO15228393 & AO15228465 as well as lodge an FIR at Saroop Nagar Police Station regarding the unauthorized transaction in question. The complainant was assured by the official of OP that clarification in this regard will be given within one week.
  5. It is further alleged that complainant made several visit to the official of OP Bank and requested the official of OP to provide the video clipping of the above-mentioned faulty transaction of Rs.1,20,000/- but every time the complainant was falsely assured by the official of OP that within few days they will provide the video clipping.
  6. It is alleged by the complainant that non redressal of the grievance by the official of OP Bank amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank , hence,  this complaint.
  7. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP Bank.  Counsel for OP appeared before this Commission and sought an adjournment for filing of WS on behalf of OP Bank. Despite opportunity OP Bank failed to file its WS. Vide order dated 25.07.2019 of Ld. Predecessor Bench the  defence of  OP stands closed. Thereafter, complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments.
  8. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar on behalf of complainant and have perused the record.
  9. Complainant has placed on record the copy of the ATM card, copy of the saving account pass book, copy of the complaint lodged with PS Swaroop Nagar in support of his contention.
  10. Admittedly, the OP Bank in the present complaint failed to contest the case and to place on record the CCTV footage, JP lock report as well as reconciliation statement on record to verify the unauthosized transactions in question. On the contrary , the complainant has placed on record the copy of the ATM card through which the four unauthorized transactions had been undergone by the suspect. During the course of the arguments the complainant himself had physically produced the ATM card through which the aforesaid transactions was  carried out, which compel us to come to the conclusion that the ATM card is in safe custody of complainant and suspect had carried out the  transaction in question .
  11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any documentary proof on behalf of OP Bank regarding the transactions in question and in terms of the ATM card physically produced by the complainant before this Commission, we are of the considered view that on 27.07.2015, 28.07.2015, 29.07.2015 and lastly on 30.07.2015 all the transactions took place due to the security leakage on behalf of OP Bank, as the ATM card is in physical  possession of the complainant on that day and thereafter also.
  12. We therefore hold OP Bank guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:-
  1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,20,220/- against unauthorized transactions.
  2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him.

OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance till realization.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 26.04.2023.

 

 

Sanjay Kumar               Nipur Chandna                            Rajesh

                   President                            Member                            Member

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.