DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 750/2016
D.No.________________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. NEELU SHARMA,
W/o SH. DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA,
R/o B-3/14, SECTOR-16,
ROHINI, DELHI-110089. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
RITHALA ROAD, BADLI, DELHI-110042.
2. ATM INCHARGE,
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK,
ATM AT SECTOR-18, ROHINI,
BRANCH PRASHANT VIHAR,
DELHI-110085. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 29.07.2016
Date of decision: 11.02.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant has a saving bank account bearing no. 30244338186 with OP-1 and on 12.02.2016, the complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM machine i.e. OP-2 but only
CC No.750/2016 Page 1 of 6
Rs.500/- was dispensed and rest amount i.e. Rs.9,500/- was not dispensed from ATM machine of OP-2 and the complainant immediately complained to the customer care of OP-2 and OP-2 told to the complainant to lodge complaint at SBI customer care center. The complainant further alleged that the complainant complained to the customer care centre of OP-1 and OP-1 told the complainant to solve the complaint within 7 working days and as on 23.02.2016 OP-1 credited Rs.500/- in the account of the complainant and closed the complaint and the complainant again complained to the customer care centre and also wrote the complaint as on 29.03.2016 to the Branch Manager of OP-1, Badli branch but there is no solution of the complaint of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent mail to OP-1 i.e. Chairman, G.M. customer, P.S. to CGM but OP-1 replied that the complaint has been closed with ticket no.AT429224587600 and no amount credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant asked OPs to give CCTV footage. On 20.06.2016, the complainant again mail to all and also attached the statement of account and asked the question if there is Rs.9,000/- amount credited in the account of the complainant and after that there is no reply from any concern authority. The complainant further alleged that 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 has filed the present
CC No.750/2016 Page 2 of 6
complaint praying for direction to OPs to solve the problem as per the provision of C.P. Act and the complainant has also sought compensation of Rs.90,000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and filed their separate written statement/reply. OP-1 submitted in its written statement that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-1 bank has not violated any guidelines and norms of RBI circulated to the commercial banks in this regards. OP-1 further submitted that the transaction was successful and no excess amount was found, so OP-1 had no obligation and liability to credit her account with Rs.9,500/- and the complaint to different authorities of the bank were replied to her quickly and suitably. OP-1 further submitted that vide e-mail dated 05.06.2016, the complainant was advised to furnish unfilled details of ATM Debit Card i.e. used for the transaction, so that further due assistance to her could be imparted which the complainant did not and further, vide letter dated 06.06.2016 of OP-1 from Team SBI (CMS), the complainant was advised to quote the ticket no. while making any enquiry with OP-1 bank regarding resolution of her complaint which the complainant failed to give and the withdrawal slip issued by ATM of OP-2 dated 12.02.2016 shows cash withdrawn of Rs.10,000/- which confirm that the transaction was successful and
CC No.750/2016 Page 3 of 6
as per information from OP-2 there was no excess amount found after the transaction and the circumstances may be confirmed only by the competent authority of OP-2 and any excess amount, conveyed to OP-1, OP-1 would have credited the same in her account. OP-1 further submitted that OP-1 being home branch only maintains the account of the complainant and the amount of Rs.500/- vide transaction dated 12.02.2016 as conveyed by OP-2 was given credit in her account on 23.02.2016 and the rest of the alleged amount of Rs.9,000/-, if the complainant has lost Rs.9,500/- as per her allegation that the ATM belong to OP-2 has not dispensed the amount, then why she is talking about non-credit of Rs.9,000/- in her account.
4. OP-2 has filed reply and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further submitted that OP-2 received charge back request from OP-1 on 16.02.2016 and as per the request disputed/chargeback amount of Rs.500/- and the request for chargeback was accepted for Rs.500/- on 22.02.2016 and Rs.500/- was paid as per the request and OP-2 did not receive any chargeback request from OP-1.
5. The complainant filed separate replication/rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP-1 & OP-2.
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and the complainant also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of copy of complaint dated 29.03.2016
CC No.750/2016 Page 4 of 6
written by the complainant to OP-1, copies of transaction slips issued by OP-2, copies of e-mail communication between the parties and copy of statement of account.
7. OP-2 failed to appear before the Forum on 03.11.2017 and was proceeded ex-parte vide order of the said date and no evidence lead by OP-2.
8. On the other hand, Ms. Sweety Nigam, Deputy Manager of OP-1 filed her affidavit in evidence which is as per lines of defence taken by OP-1 in the written statement. OP-1 has also filed written arguments.
9. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP-1 in the light of the documents placed on record by the complainant and OP-1. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. We find force in the arguments of the complainant. The complainant has clearly stated that amount of Rs.9,500/- was not disbursed to him by ATM machine i.e. of OP-2 may be due to technical problem occurred with the machine at that time. Failure on the part of OPs to produce CCTV footage and report of Cash Balance Register of the said date shows deficiency in service on the part of the banks and benefit is ought to be given to the complainant. Accordingly, in the light of above OP-1 is held guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, this forum directs OP-1 as follows:
CC No.750/2016 Page 5 of 6
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.9,000/- being the amount which was not disbursed by OP-2 (ATM machine).
ii) To pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainants.
iii) To pay to the complainants 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 25/27 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 11th day of February, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.750/2016 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET
