Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 237.
Instituted on : 29.07.2013.
Decided on : 18.08.2015.
Bhim Singh Hooda s/o Sh. Daryao Singh R/o Village-Chamaria, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- State Bank of India, Medical College Branch Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.
- Punjab National Bank, Rothak through its Branch Manager.
- Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ram Gopal Colony, Sonepat Road, Rothak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Som Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is having an A/c No.10230659749 with the opposite party No.1 and he has availed the ATM facility for the same. It is averred that on 07.09.2012 the complainant went on ATM of Punjab National Bank, Rohtak for withdrawal of Rs.10000/- but neither any cash nor any receipt was received by the complainant due to some mechanical fault in the machine. It is averred that thereafter the complainant got checked his account and came to know that tan amount of Rs.10000/- has been deducted from his account whereas he has not received such amount. It is averred that complainant informed the bank officials in this regard vide complaint no.4296223045 and submitted the requisite fee for obtaining CCTV footage of the ATM to prove his assertion. The complainant has also reported the matte at customer care of the opposite parties but till today neither the amount of Rs.10000/- has been restored in the account of the complainant nor any further action has been taken by the opposite parties. It is averred that the act of opposite parties of deducting the amount of Rs.10000/- from the account of complainant due to mechanical fault is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has served a legal notice dated 27.10.2012 to the complainant but opposite party no1. replied the legal notice in an unsatisfactory manner and refused to rector the amount in the account of complainant. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to restore an amount of Rs.10000/- in the account of complainant alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party No.1 did not appear and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.02.2014 of this Forum. However, opposite party no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that no details of said ATM card has been provided by complainant to the opposite party no.2 & 3. It is submitted that complainant is not having any account with answering opposite parties and as such there is no question of deducting any amount from his account. So there is no cause of action. It is denied that complainant has not withdrawn any amount of Rs.10000/- from his account but the same has been illegally deducted from his account due to mechanically fault of the ATM. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is averred that no cause of action against the answering opposite party and as such it is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand opposite party no.2 & 3 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.07.2015 of this Forum.
4. We have heard ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that as per the entry made in pass book of the complainant Ex.C3 an amount of Rs.10000/- has been shown as withdrawn from the account of complainant on 07.09.2012 of ATM 4175 Punjab National Bank. As per document Ex.C5, an amount of Rs.10000/- has been shown as withdrawal on 07.09.2012. The contention of the complainant is that on 07.09.2012 complainant tried to withdraw the amount of Rs.10000/- from his account through ATM but the complainant did not receive the alleged amount whereas the same has been deducted from his account. Complainant also moved an application Ex.C4 with the opposite party no.1 to look into the matter and the same was forwarded in original to the opposite party no.2 & 3 to provide the CCTV Footage to the complainant and as per receipt Ex.C6 complainant also deposited the prescribed amount of Rs.1124/- with the Punjab National Bank for taking the CCTV Footage. But the same has not been provided to the complainant.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that from the documents placed on file by the complainant it is proved that the amount of Rs.10000/- has shown to be withdrawn from the account of the complainant and his account was debited with Rs.10000/-. But regarding the fact that the amount was not withdrawn by him, complainant applied for taking the CCTV footage with the opposite parties but the same has not been got provided to the complainant by the opposite parties. Moreover the opposite parties failed to led any evidence and were proceeded against exparte. As such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2015)CPJ 135(NC) titled as State Bank of India Vs. Sansar Chand Kapoor & Anr. Hon’ble National Commissions, New Delhi has held that: “ATM-Fraudulent withdrawal-CCTV Footage not given-Mental agony and harassment-Deficiency in service-District forum allowed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Bank ought to have made available copy of CCTV footage to complainant- Petitioner Bank was deficient in rendering services to complainant, by not making available a copy of CCTV footage to him-Order of Fora below to the extent of refund of amount of Rs.10000/- alongwith interest is set aside-However, order to the extent it awards compensation and cost of litigation is upheld”.
7. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant is entitled for the compensation alongwith fee deposited by him for taking the CCTV footage. As such opposite party no.2 & 3 are directed to pay the a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation, Rs.2500/- as cost of litigation and Rs.1124/- as refund of fee i.e. total Rs.6624/-(Rupees six thousand six hundred twenty four only) to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 90% p.a. from the date of decision. As such the present complaint stands disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.08.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………...
Ved Pal, Member.
