DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1179/2015
D.No.________________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAKESH KUMAR S/o HARI OM SHARMA,
R/o F-10, RAMA PARK, SIRASPUR,
DELHI-110042.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER),
AG-10Z, SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT NAGAR,
DELHI-110042.
2. UNION BANK OF INDIA,
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER),
BHORGARH, DELHI. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 12.10.2015
Date of decision:27.04.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant has a saving account bearing account no. 4991002100003647 with OP-1 and the complainant is using the
CC No.1179/2015 Page 1 of 6
said account for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and the complainant was issued ATM-Card also by OP-1. On 12.05.2015 & 13.05.2015 some unknown person withdrewan amount of Rs.70,240/- from the said account of the complainant and message alert was also closed and the ATM-Card was with the complainant, then how the amount is withdrawn from the account and some amount is also withdrawn from ATM of OP-2. The complainant further alleged that the complainant approached both OPs and police department also but there is no proper response and the complainant requested both OPs to give the footage of the cash withdrawal scenario, so that the complainant can also authenticate the culprit but there is no proper response in this matter by OPs and the banks are duly bound to provide the CCTV viewable footage to its customers. Thereafter, if OPs provided the CCTV viewable footage to the complainant and it must have helped the police department/complainant in identifying the person/culprit who withdrew the amount and non-providing of footage to the complainant inspite of many requests, shows clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant filed the present complaint praying for direction to OPs to pay Rs.70,240/- which was withdrawn wrongly, as OPs are guilty in providing proper service, not giving footage of the amount withdrawn on 12.05.2015 &
CC No.1179/2015 Page 2 of 6
13.05.2015 as well as compensation Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment and also sought Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. During the pendency of the case, the complainant filed an application dated 07.02.2017 for deletion of OP-2 i.e. Bank of India from the array of the parties and also filed an application dated 07.02.2017 for impleading “Union Bank of India” as a necessary party. Application of the complainant was considered & allowedvide order dated 08.02.2017.
4. Earlier OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed written statement/reply and in the written statement/reply, OP-1 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- twice by using the ATM machine belonging to Union Bank of India installed at Bhorgarh on 11.05.2015 and further withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- twice and Rs.5,000/- on 12.05.2015 having transaction nos.1801, 1802, 1814, 1815 & 1816 respectively and the complainant on 13.05.2015, used the ATM machine of OP-1 i.e. Punjab National Bank for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- twice & Rs.5,000/- having transaction no.5542, 5543 & 5544 and thus the complainant withdrew total amount of Rs.70,000/- by using ATM card no.5126520116775474 from ATM machine of OP-1 and OP-2i.e. Union Bank of India respectively and
CC No.1179/2015 Page 3 of 6
the transaction summary reveals that all the transactions of withdrawal were successful. OP-1 further submitted that it is worthwhile mentioning that without revelation of ATM card secret number and/or parting with ATM card in favour of some one known withdrawals from the complainant’s account are not possible.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 and denied the submissions of the OP-1 and re-affirmed allegations in the complaint.
6. However, none has appeared on behalf of OP-2 i.e. Union Bank of India on 18.05.2017, 07.09.2017 & 06.12.2017 despite service of notice and as such OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.12.2017.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and the complainant also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of first page of passbook of Punjab National Bank, copy of statement of account issued by OP-1, copy of DD no.46B on 14.05.2015 lodged by the complainant to Police Station, SamaipurBadli, Delhi, copy of letter dated 15.05.2015 sent by the complainant to OP-1, copy of letter dated 03.06.2015 sent by the complainant to EOW, Delhi Police and copy of letter dated 10.06.2015 sent by the complainant to OP-1.
8. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of the documents placed onrecord by the complainant.The case of
CC No.1179/2015 Page 4 of 6
the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. As OP-2 has been proceeded ex-parte and OP-1 has failed to lead any evidence in its favour, as such we are of opinion that there is no justification in the defence of the OPs and cannot be believed. After receiving complaint/letters from the complainant about wrongfully withdrawing the amount from the saving account of the complainant, OPs are under a legal obligation to provide CCTV footage of the relevant date to the complainant so as to identify the person withdrawing the said amount. Failure on the part of OPs in providing CCTV footage to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and OP-1 was under a duty to credit the amount which has been wrongly withdrawn from the account of the complainant. As the OP-1 has not given the amount of Rs.70,240/- in the bank account of the complainant, we are of opinion that OP-1 has failed to provide proper service to the complainant.
9. Accordingly, OP-1 is held guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, this forum orders as follows:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.70,240/- being wrongly withdrawn from the account of the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
CC No.1179/2015 Page 5 of 6
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/-as cost of litigation.
10. The above order shall be complied by OP-1 within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 27thday of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.1179/2015 Page 6 of 6
