DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 412/2017
Date of Institution 24/10/2017
Order Reserved on 27/03/2019
Date of Order 29/03/2019
In matter of-
Mrs. Rohita
W/o- Mr DSR Raju
R/o- 294, 1st Floor, Gagan Vihar, Delhi 110051….…….………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Branch Manager
State Bank of India,
Swasthya Vihar, Delhi 92
2-The Manager
Central Bank of India
Geeta Colony Branch Delhi 92…………………….……………………….Opponents
Complainant In Person
Opponent 1 Advo. Mr Vijay Prakash
Opponent 2 Advo. Officer –Central Bank of India
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant had saving bank account in OP1/ State Bank of India no. 20022594249 and had ATM card of OP1 (Ex CW1/1). On 27/05/2017 complainant wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs 10,000/-from OP2 Bank’s ATM at Jagatpuri Delhi, but could not get amount. She received message of debit for Rs 10,000/-from her account, so she immediately called on customer care of OP1 and also to police on 100 no. and gave a written complaint to Police (Ex CW1/4). She also made complaint to customer care no. of OP2 (Ex CW1/3) and sent email to OP1 for the supply of CCTV footages on the same day. The supply of footages was denied by OP2.
She stated that despite visiting OPs office, neither her amount was reverted nor any reply or action taken was received (Ex CW1/5 to 8). It was stated that complainant received message from OP1 office that CCTV footage was received from OP2 office on 30/08/2017 and the same was shown to complainant, but refused to give a copy to complainant. Seeing callous and negligent behavior and deficient services of OPs, suffered mental agony and financial loss, so filed this complaint and claimed for reverting amount Rs 10,000/- jointly by OP1 and OP2 and harassment and mental agony Rs 10,000/- with litigation charges Rs 10,000/-.
OP1 submitted written statement and denied allegations in deficiency in their services. It was stated that ATM card was issued from OP1 branch vide card and amount Rs 10,000/- was debited from her account as transaction was successful. It was stated that a sum of Rs 10,000/-were withdrawn from OP2 ATM and as soon as complaint for supply of CCTV footage was received from complainant the same was transferred to OP2 bank. It was stated that OP1 procured footage from OP2 and the same was given to the complainant as CD (Ex OPW1/1). OP1 also stated that usage of card at any ATM amounts to customer’s acceptance of terms and conditions. No transaction of money withdrawal, balance enquiry, mini statement, POS transaction can be done without ATM cum debit card and secret PIN number. Thus any fraud or unauthorized use of the card, PIN number, OP1 could not be held responsible. Hence, all the allegations of deficiency in services against OP1 were totally wrong and false, so complaint may be dismissed with cost.
OP2 did neither put their appearance nor submitted written statement or evidence despite receiving notice (Ex CW1/9), hence preceded Ex Parte.
Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP1 and denied replies submitted. It was stated that due to close collusion in between OP1 and OP2, her amount was not reverted in her account. Complainant stated that the CCTV footage was received after wastage of lots of time and neither CCTV footage was shown nor her money was reverted in her account maintained by OP1. Evidences were submitted by way of her own affidavit where she affirmed that all her evidence were correct and on record. She relied on evidences as CW1/1 to CW1/5. So her claim was genuine and complaint may be allowed.
Arguments were heard from the counsel of OP1 and complainant. None present for OP2. After perusing material on record, order was reserved.
We perused the facts and evidences on record. From written description of CD submitted by the complainant, it is stated that money was fraudulently withdrawn as soon as she left the ATM booth of OP2 and received message on her mobile phone for debit of Rs 10,000/-from her account. OP2 neither submitted written statement nor evidence on record especially EJ data as switch report and ATM cash balance sheet. Hence alleged deficiency was not discharged by OP2.
So, we come to the conclusion that OP2 was deficient in their services. OP1 did their services as per bank protocol. So, there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP1 and exonerated from any liability. OP2 is directed to refund the debited amount of Rs 10,000/-in the account of complainant through OP1 where account is being operated with 8% interest from the date of filing of this complaint within 30 days after receiving order. We also award Rs 10,000/- compensation for harassment and mental agony to be paid directly to the complainant by way of demand draft. This will include litigation charges also. If awarded amount is not paid in time essence, then entire awarded amount shall carry same interest till realization.
The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties under Section 18(6 ) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under the Section 20(1) of the CPR.
(Dr) P N Tiwari Member Sukhdev Singh President
