Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/252/2015

Bank of Maharashtra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sukhwinder Kaur - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Yadav, Adv.

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	252 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	05.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	07.10.2015

 

1. Bank of Maharashtra, C.L. Lokmangal, 1501 Shivajinagar, Pune 411005, through Zonal Manager for Punjab and Haryana Zone.
2. Zonal Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Zonal Office, Chandigarh SCO No.88-89, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017.
3. Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, SCO No.121-122, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh 160047

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Sh.Balwinder Singh, R/o H.No.424, Phase-XI, Mohali, Punjab.

              ....Respondent/complainant

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh.Munish Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 09.07.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it accepted complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs. The Opposite parties are directed jointly & severally as under:-

 [a] To pay interest @6% per annum on Rs.23,000/.- since 22.10.2013 till the same is reversed in her account after the investigations.

 [b] To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

 [c] To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount Rs.15000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.”

2.       The complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint before the Forum, alleging deficiency in rendering service against the Opposite Parties/ appellants, stating that she neither applied for ATM/Debit card to them, nor received the same, yet, somebody withdrew an amount of Rs.23,000/- from her account, by using the same. She came to know about this fact on 24.10.2013. To withdraw above amount, transactions were conducted at four different ATMs. The matter was reported to Opposite Party No.3/appellant No.3. It is her positive case that by forging her signatures, one ATM card was issued to someone without her knowledge. The matter was also reported to the Police. When on making several visits to appellant No.3, nothing was done, and the complainant was not compensated, she filed consumer complaint before the Forum, which was allowed, vide the order impugned, in the manner, referred to above.
3.       The appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed joint reply. It was their specific stand that the saving bank account was opened under special scheme, which envisages providing of ATM cum Debit Card, at the time of opening of new account. Withdrawal of an amount of Rs.23,000/- from saving bank account of the respondent was admitted. It was also admitted that the complainant gave written complaint on 25.10.2013, qua unauthorized withdrawal of amount from her account. The allegation of deficiency in rendering service was rebutted.
4.       Both the parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5.       After hearing Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6.       Hence this appeal.
7.       We have heard Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8.       It is vehemently contended by Counsel for the appellants, that providing ATM/Debit card was a practice, on opening of an account, as per scheme known as “INSTA Mahabank Account”. It was stated that in view of the above scheme, on the very first day of opening of account, ATM/debit card was handed over to the respondent. The debit card in question was operated through ATM of some other bank. It is argued that despite request having been made to the respondent to accompany the Officers of the Bank, to view the CCTV footage, in the concerned ATM(s), to identify the person, who had withdrawn the money unauthorizedly, she refused to do so.
9.       On perusal of record, we are of the considered opinion that the Forum has rightly came to a conclusion that the saving bank account of the respondent was being properly maintained. She had deposited her salary amount, in the said account. Four unauthorized withdrawals total amounting to Rs.23,000/- were conducted on 18.10.2013 and 22.10.2013. When the respondent came to know of such transactions, immediately, a written complaint was given to appellant No.3, on 25.10.2013. It was specifically stated by her that at no point of time, she had applied for and received an ATM/Debit Card. It was further stated that she had not signed any document, in receipt of the above said card. By taking note of entries made in the Bank Account Opening Form and the register showing signatures of the respondent against which debit card was released, the Forum rightly came to the conclusion that her signatures does not tally in the register, in which release of debit card has been shown. As per practice,  the complete file of the Forum is put up before  this Commission, at the time of preliminary hearing of an appeal. We have looked into the record, and gone through the findings given by the Forum in the order impugned qua difference of signatures of the respondent, which is perfectly justified. It was also rightly noticed by the Forum that against the entry showing issuance of debit card to the respondent, no date is mentioned. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the bank concerned, where account was opened, had facility to prepare debit card and hand it over to the customers, on opening of an account. For non-filing of an affidavit of an employee, who had maintained record of the bank, the averments made by the appellants that debit card was handed over to the respondent, when her account was opened, was rightly rejected by the Forum.
10.       It is an admitted fact that the debit card was operated through Canara Bank, at Kurali Branch. Above town is situated very near to Chandigarh. It is case of the appellants that to identify the person concerned, who had operated the debit card, the respondent was asked to accompany them to the said branch, to identify the persons concerned, but she refused. Be that as may, it was not impossible for the Officers of the bank to go to Kurali Branch of Canara Bank, to verify who had withdrawn the money aforesaid. Whether it was the respondent, or somebody else. Even that effort was not done by the appellants.  Not only this, it has also come on record that there is no written request made by the respondent, for issuance of debit card, with the appellants bank. It is therefore held that the appellants were deficient, in rendering service, to the respondent. The Forum was also right, in holding so.
11.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellants.
12.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
13.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
14.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

07.10.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg