Delhi

North East

CC/92/2019

Sh. Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.B.I. Bank - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 92/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Vidya Sagar R/o E-129, Street No. 18, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	MSAB SBI Bank Nand Ngari, Delhi-93	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:  DATE OF ORDER:

11.10.19 04.01.23 06.04.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1.  The case of the Complainant is that he is having an account no. 30064294389 with Opposite Party with ATM card facility. The Complainant stated that without any intimation the Opposite Party blocked his ATM card on 28.08.19 and he lodged a written complaint on the same day to the Opposite Party and requested to unblock his ATM card. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party bank has taken no action regarding the issue and he has also sent legal notice to the Opposite Party but no reply given by Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 25.03.22.

Ex-Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. There is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party as Opposite Party has not given any intimation to Complainant regarding the blockage of his ATM card, hence, the complaint is allowed. The Complainant has not placed anything on record to show that he was suffered any kind of financial loss due to this act of Opposite Party. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.   
6. Order announced on 06.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President