Delhi

North East

CC/114/2018

Sh. Pramod - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Apr 2022

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. 114/18

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

Shri Pramod

S/o Shri Chander Lal

R/o H.No. C-24, Lal Bagh

Loni Ghaziabad, U.P.-201102                                                                   Complainant

	Versus

1. State Bank of India

Through Branch Manager

Karawal Nagar

Delhi-110094

 

2. Bank of Baroda

Through Branch Manager

Mukhiya Market, Near Post Office

Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094            Opposite Parties

 

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

13.06.2018 23.03.2022 13.04.2022

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

             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 as revealed from the record is that the Complainant has Saving Bank Account No. 10226267261 with Opposite Party No. 1. It is submitted by the Complainant that he went to the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2 on 19.04.2018 at 12:00 p.m. for withdrawing the money. After completing all the requisite procedure to withdraw the money, the ATM Machine of Opposite Party No. 2 could not dispense money to the Complainant. Then Complainant received SMS alert on his registered mobile number that amount of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 9,000/- had been withdrawn from the ATM machine of Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant registered two complaints with Opposite Party No. 1 on 19.04.2018 vide complaint no. 4157616244 & 4157619222. The bank staff assured the Complainant that above said money would be returned within 8 days but the money was not returned to him. The Complainant gave written complaint to Opposite Party No. 1 on 19.05.2018 & 22.05.2018. Again the Complainant has not received any amount from the Opposite Party No. 1.
2. The Complainant has prayed for issuing directions to Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs. 19,000/-. He has also claimed Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for harassment. It is also prayed by the Complainant to award Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation charges.
3. Complainant has attached copy of ATM slip withdrawal amount of  Rs. 19,000/-, copy of withdrawal message in mobile, copy of complaint number and messages, copy of Pass Book and copy of complaint with Opposite Party No. 1.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

4. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant had filed his complaint before Banking Ombudsman RBI, New Delhi. Opposite Party No. 1 further submitted that the disputed amount of Rs. 19,000/- had already been paid to the Complainant by Opposite Party No. 2 to the Opposite Party No. 1 as per the direction of Banking Ombudsman. The said amount had been credited to Complainant by Opposite Party No. 1 on 31.08.2018. Further, Opposite Party No. 1 prayed that the name of Opposite Party No. 1 would be deleted from the array of parties.

The case of the Opposite Party No. 2

5. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant had only made complaint with Opposite Party No. 1 for the disputed amount. Opposite Party No. 2 further stated that Complainant had already filed his complaint before Banking Ombudsman RBI, New Delhi on 04.06.2018. The disputed amount had already been paid to the Complainant on 31.08.2018 as per Banking Ombudsman direction. Further, it was denied by the Opposite Party No. 2 that the Complainant had not received the transaction amount of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 9,000/- from the ATM. As per cash balancing report no excess certificate dated 19.04.2018 and 20.06.2018 from the concerned department there was no excess amount reported on 19.04.2018 and the transaction in question were successful. It was stated by Opposite Party No. 2 that the Complainant had not only made a false claim of the disputed transaction amount but also concealed the fact of making the complaint to the Banking Ombudsman and till date he had not disclosed the fact of receiving of the amount of Rs 19,000/- for the disputed amount. It is prayed by the Opposite Party No. 2 that complaint of the Complainant be dismissed with cost.    

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 2 wherein he has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 2 and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint. The Complainant admitted that the disputed amount has been credited in his account by the Opposite Party No. 1.

 Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support if his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of slip generated from ATM, copy of SMS received from Opposite Party No. 1, copy of registered complaints with Opposite Party No. 1, the copy of pass book & copy of letter dated 22.05.2018.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

8.        In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of  Shri Sanjay Jain Branch Manager, State Bank of India. In his affidavit he has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

9.        In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of  Shri Kishan Singh, Senior Manager / Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda. In his affidavit he has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement. In support of his case Opposite Party No. 2 relied upon the copy of complaint dated 04.06.2018 made by the Complainant, copy of emails of the Opposite Party No. 2, copy of statement of account of the Complainant with Opposite Party No. 1, copy of switch dispense report and copy of no excess cash certificate dated 20.06.2018.

Arguments and Conclusions

10.      We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the file. We have also perused the written arguments filed by the parties.  Complainant in his written arguments stated that he went to withdraw the money from the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 ATM machine could not dispensed money. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- &  Rs. 9,000/- had been deducted from the Complainant’s account. Complainant informed Opposite Party No. 1 on the same day. Bank Official gave assurance to Complainant that the said amount will be credited in his account within 7-8 days. Complainant again filed the two complaints with Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant stated that he had lodged complaint on 19.04.2018 before Banking Ombudsman and the disputed amount had been reimbursed as per Banking Ombudsman direction. Further, Complainant stated that due to delay of 123 days he is entitled to Rs. 12,300/- as per RBI guidelines.

11.      OP1 stated in its written arguments that complaint against Opposite Party No. 1 is not maintainable. Complainant is only customer of Opposite Party No. 1 and the Complainant used the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2 for withdrawing the money. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 has no role in the said complaint. Further, it was submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that advisory were also issued by Banking Ombudsman to the Opposite Party No. 2 not to the Opposite Party No. 1 after taking all the facts and circumstances in to consideration.

12.      Opposite Party No. 2 stated in his written arguments that Complainant had made complaint only with Opposite Party No. 1. The Grievance of the Complainant had already been redressed by Banking Ombudsman and the disputed amount of Rs. 19,000/- had already been paid to the Complainant on 31.08.2018. It was also submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2 that there were no excess amount of reported on 19.04.2018 as per no excess certificate.

13.      The case of the Complainant is that he went to the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2 for withdrawal of money. He used the ATM for withdrawal of money and inserted the ATM card in the ATM. However, no cash was dispensed by the machine. The Complainant received message that an amount of Rs. 19,000/- was debited in his account. Then the Complainant made complaints to the bank admittedly the Complainant filed a complaint on 04.06.2018 before the Banking Ombudsman.

14.      Admittedly, the Complainant went to the ATM on 19.04.2018. As per the case of the Complainant he made complaint to the banks i.e. Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 2. The Complainant had filed the present complaint on 13.06.2018. It is also an admitted fact on 04.06.2018 i.e. prior to the filing of the present complaint the Complainant had filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. It is important to note that the Complainant in the present complaint has concealed the fact that he had already filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. The Complainant apart from concealing this fact has also filed the present complaint without waiting for outcome of his complaint filed before the Banking Ombudsman. Admittedly, the Complainant received an amount of Rs. 19,000/-from the Opposite Party No. 1 on the direction of Banking Ombudsman. On 11.02.2022, the Complainant was asked to disclose the date of order passed by the Banking Ombudsman but the Complainant did not disclose the same. Therefore, under these circumstances it is clear that the Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and had concealed the material facts. Hence in our consider opinion the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation etc. The Complainant had already received the amount of Rs. 19,000/-. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                              (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                   (President)