1. AXIS Bank Ltd.

C-1/12A, Ground Floor

Yamuna Vihar

.…Respondent No. 2

​1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.            The present appeal is filed by the appellant/bank challenging order dated 30.10.14 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (North-East), Nand Nagri (in short “the District Forum”) in CC No. 471/12 whereby the complainant case has been allowed. 
2.            A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum against the appellant/OP-1 and AXIS Bank i.e. respondent No. 2 herein i.e. OP-2 before the District Forum alleging therein that he had a salary account with the appellant.  On 14.10.02, he went to the ATM of respondent No. 2 i.e. AXIS Bank to withdraw Rs.8,000/-.  He had alleged that he made efforts to do the transaction but the money did not come out from the ATM machine though the machine had shown a successful transaction. He had alleged that Rs.8,000/- was also deducted from his account.  The respondent No. 1 waited there for half an hour but the money did not come out from the ATM machine. On the same day he had made a complaint at the Customer Care Service SR 224131462 of appellant and was told that the money would be credited to his account within seven days but nothing was done. Thereafter, he made a complaint to the Deputy General Manager of the appellant and also wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 and also took up the matter with banking Lokpal (RBI).  The respondent No.1 had received a reply from banking Lokpal (RBI) but no relief was given.  Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Forum seeking directions against the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 to pay him Rs.8,000/- towards principle amount and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as  litigation expenses. 
3.            The appellant filed reply before the District Forum wherein it was stated that in the order passed by the Banking Ombudsman it has been clearly stated that the bank where transaction had taken place i.e. AXIS Bank ATM, no excess cash had been reported and the transaction had been successful as per the EJ slip maintain at the ATM as such complaint was liable to be rejected.
4.            Respondent No. 2 did not contest the complainant case of respondent No.1.
5.            In support of the case respondent No. 1 filed his affidavit in evidence.  However, no affidavit in evidence was filed by the appellant.  After hearing the respondent/ complainant and Counsel for the appellant/OP and considering the material on record including the evidence of respondent No. 1 the District Forum had allowed the complaint and had directed the appellant to pay Rs.8,000/- towards principal amount, Rs.4,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of litigation to the respondent No.1.
6.            Aggrieved with the same, present appeal is filed.
7.            Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Forum has held that the transaction was not successful but no reasons have been given for the same.  It is submitted that once the transaction has been successful as per the records of the appellant than there can not be a chance of reversal of the amount. It is contended that in the present case respondent No. 1 has himself entered the transaction and according to him the ATM machine was showing it successful, in that event respondent No.1 was not entitled for any relief.
8.            The perusal of the impugned orders shows that no evidence has been filed by the appellant before the District Forum to substantiate that the transaction was successful.
9.            The relevant portion of the order of the District Forum is reproduced as under :-
   •  
10.         The complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum for want of evidence of the appellant.
11.         Even at the appeal stage no explanation is given as to why the documents referred in the impugned order i.e.JP Log, switch centre report and the cash reconciliation report were not brought before the District Forum.  Even the same are also not filed with the appeal nor any request is made that the same can be produced. The appellant aught to have shown the material on the basis of which it was alleging that the transaction was successful.  The District Forum has rightly observed that the appellant has intentionally withheld the material information. 
12.         No illegality is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission.
13.         The appeal is dismissed in limine.  
14.         FDR, if any, be release in favour of appellant as per rule.  
15.         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.