Delhi

East Delhi

CC/349/2015

SABA AMEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

STANSARD CHARTED BANK - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.349/15

SABA AMEER

342, NEW LOHAR COLONY,

SHASTRI NAGAR,

NEAR BISMILLAH MASJID,

1.  

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

•  

1. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,

T.NAGAR BRANCH,

CHENNAI.

 

2. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,

 ATM AT NIRMAN VIHAR METRO STATION,

MADHUBAN BRANCH,

NEW DELHI-110092

                                                                                                                         ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 16.05.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 14.07.2017

Judgment Passed on: 21.07.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Ms. Saba Ameer (Complainant) against “Standard Chartered Bank” (OP-1), and “Punjab National Bank” (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in service.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant, Ms. Saba Ameer, on 10/09/2014 used ATM of OP-2 at Nirman Vihar Metro Station, for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-, but the same amount was not dispensed from the ATM. The complainant registered the complaint with Standard Chartered Bank (OP-1), where she had an account. OP-1 communicated to OP-2 regarding complaint alleged by the complainant, where OP-2 informed that it was a valid transaction. It is stated in the complaint that OP-2 refused to show the CCTV footage thereafter, complainant approached Deputy Commissioner Office and Jagatpuri Police Station, but her grievance was not addressed. Despite several follow ups and complaints she was not satisfied with the response of OPs. Hence, this present complaint seeking refund of Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The complainant has annexed online registration of the complaint dated 18/12/2014, 02/01/2015, 16/12/2014, correspondence by the complainant with OP, complaint with Banking OMBUDSMAN, RTI dated 10/02/2015 with the present complaint.
4.  Notice of the complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2, but OP-2 neither appeared nor filed their reply. However, reply was filed on behalf of OP-1 where they stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and they were not a necessary party in the present complaint. It was stated that withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was successful which was confirmed by EJ copy shared by OP-2. Hence, it being a valid transaction, the amount was released to OP-2. Thus, the account bearing no. 43610342546 was debited by Rs.10,000/- on 10/09/2014. It was also stated that the Debit Card/ATM Card could not be used without permission of the complainant which was always in the possession of the complainant. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5. They have annexed E-mails exchanged with OP-2 as Annexure-A, letter by OP-2 dated 10/02/2015 stating that as per JP Log transaction was successful and no excess cash was found, reconciliation sheet, switch transaction report, letter written by OP-1 and OP-2, Bank OMBUDSMAN report as Annexure-B and EJ Log copy as Annexure-C.
6. Rejoinder to the reply filed by OP-1 was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the complaint were reiterated and that of the reply were denied.
7. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant who examined herself and stated the contents of the complaint. Reliance was placed on photocopy of the ATM card which was exhibited as Ex. CW1/1, complaint to OP-1 vide complaint Ref. No.11/14/080950/SP/LIB is exhibited as Ex. CW1/2, complaint vide Ref. No. 20141003654324 which was exhibited as Ex. CW1/3, complaint vide Ref. No. 10/14/037933/SP/LIB was exhibited as Ex. CW1/4, complaint vide Ref. No. 4726451/LIB was exhibited as Ex. CW1/5, complaint vide Ref. No. 20141217753882 was exhibited as Ex. CW1/6 and complaint vide Ref. No. 12/14/068936/SP/LIB was exhibited as Ex. CW1/7.
8. OP examined Shri Anand Pradash, Legal Manager, with the OP bank, who stated the contents of the reply & placed reliance on the documents provided by the Punjab National bank as Ex.OPW1/1 (colly), reply filed by OP before the banking OMBUDSMAN as Ex. OPW1/2, the copy of the EJ as Ex.OPW1/3.
9. We have heard the complainant and have perused the material on record. Ex. OPW1/1 and the documents annexed with the complaint which is EJ report, reveal that the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was successful, letter dated 10/02/2015 annexed with the reply filed by OP-1 also supports the same. This submission is further strengthened by the reconciliation sheet. As these documents are computer generated and cannot be manipulated, thus the transaction done by the complainant was successful. When the transaction was successful, no deficiency in service is found on part of OPs. Thus, present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost. 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                        (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                                  MEMBER

 

 

                                                 (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                     PRESIDENT