Delhi

StateCommission

A/2/2017

DEV NARAYAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                         

First Appeal No. 2/2017

 

(Arising out of the order dated 19.10.2016 passed in complaint case No. 225/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi)

In the matter of:

 

Sh. Dev Narayan Singh

S/o Sh. Moti Prasad

R/o 96, Sector-4

Type-1, Timarpur

•  

 

Versus

 

1. The Assistant General Manager

Canara Bank

Circle Office, 8^th Floor

Ansal Towers, 38

Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019

 

2. The Bank Manager

State Bank of India

Timarpur Branch

•  

                                                                  

                                                                  

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                    Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                      Yes

 

Dated: 29^th January 2019

 

ORDER

 

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER

 

1.     Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tis Hazari (in short ‘Ld. District Forum’) in Complaint Case No. 225/2014. Ld. District Forum had allowed the complaint and held respondent-1/OP-1 liable to refund the amount of Rs. 7,800/- to appellant/complainant alongwith saving bank interest from the date of use of ATM till date of realization and Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation. Not satisfied with the compensation given by Ld. District Forum present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant.
2.     Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had a Saving Bank Account bearing no. 10945863005 with respondent-2/OP-2 i.e. State Bank of India, Timar Pur Branch, Delhi and was issued a ATM card with card no. 6220181043800011875 by respondent-2/OP-2. It was alleged by the appellant/complainant that on 01.10.2013 the appellant/complainant used his ATM card for withdrawal of Rs. 7,800/- at the ATM of Canara Bank i.e. respondent-1/OP-1 but the amount was not disbursed, however an amount of Rs. 7,800/- was debited from his account. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant lodged a complaint with the branch manager of respondent-2/OP-2 as well as respondent-1/OP-1 to revert back the debited money in his account but the money was not credited. The allegation of appellant/complainant was that both the respondents/OPs were in connivance with each other and had grabbed the money of appellant/complainant. Thereafter appellant/complainant sent a legal notice to both the respondents/OPs on 06.05.2014 which was also not replied by any of the respondents/OPs. Alleging deficiency in service on part of respondents/OPs a complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 7,800/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental and physical agony.
3.     On notice both the respondents/OPs filed their respective written statements.
4.     Respondent-1/OP-1 in its written statement stated that there was no cause of action against the respondent-1/OP-1. On merits, it was stated that appellant/complainant had made a transaction at their ATM and had successfully withdrawn the amount of Rs. 7,800/- vide slip no. 01587123. It was stated by respondent-1/OP-1 that as per statement obtained from ATM services department it was observed that the withdrawal effected on 01.10.2013 was successful. It was further stated that whenever the ATM machine is used, it gives a slip to show successful or unsuccessful transaction. The appellant/complainant did not mention about any declining slip.  It was also stated that the complaint was mis-conceived, false hence is liable to be dismissed.
5.     Respondent-2/OP-2 in their reply stated that the appellant/complainant had submitted a hand written complaint to them which did not have date on which the complaint was addressed to respondent no. 1/OP-1 nor the copy of said complaint/letter was given to them. It was stated that the legal notice was sent 6 months after the incident took place i.e. on 06.05.2015. Further, respondent-2/OP-2 vide their reply to the legal notice dated 23.05.2014 had informed the appellant/complainant that as per EJ log, received from respondent no. 1/OP-1, the transaction was indicated as successful. It was further stated since transaction was successful as per EJ log, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
6.     Thereafter appellant/complainant as well as both the respondents/OPs filed their evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments.
7.     The Ld. District Forum after considering the evidence filed by the parties allowed the complaint and ordered for refund of amount of Rs. 7,800/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 3,000/-.
8.     Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by District Forum present appeal is filed by appellant/complainant on the ground that the Ld. District Forum has failed to consider that appellant/complainant has not only prayed for refund of Rs. 7,800/- with interest @ 18% p.a., but also has prayed for direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation charges. However, the District Forum has passed an order directing the respondent-1/OP-1 to refund Rs. 7,800/- alongwith saving bank interest from 01.10.2013 i.e. date of ATM till the date of realization and Rs. 3000/- towards compensation which is not complete relief. In his appeal he has prayed to modify the order of the District Forum by enhancing the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and also to allow Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation costs.
9.     Notice of the appeal is issued to the respondents/OPs. Both the respondents/OPs contested the appeal and filed their reply to the appeal.
10.  The contention of respondent-1/OP-1 is that the appellant/complainant has filed the appeal with malafide intention. It is submitted that just to avoid any controversy as a small issue is involved, the respondent-1/OP-1 in compliance of the District Forum’s order prepared a cheque of Rs. 11,820/- in favour of appellant/complainant vide cheque no. 719299 dated 23.11.2016 including Rs. 7,800/- of disputed amount and Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation alongwith interest till date but neither appellant/complainant was available at his address nor he approached the District Forum to receive the money. It is further submitted that appellant/complainant is trying to extract money from the respondent-1/OP-1 by misleading the Commission. It is further submitted that appellant/complainant is not residing at the address mentioned in the complaint and requested that correct address be provided.
11. Respondent-2/OP-2 i.e. State Bank of India stated the present appeal is not maintainable against respondent-2/OP-2 because no award has been passed by Ld. District Forum against respondent-2/OP-2 and the appellant/complainant is unnecessarily dragging the respondent-2/OP-2 before this Commission. Therefore, the name of respondent-2/OP-2 be deleted from the array of the parties and may be treated as performa party.
12.  We have heard appellant/complainant in person and also counsel for both the respondents/OPs and perused the order of the Ld. District Forum.
13.  The Ld. District Forum carefully examined the evidence filed by the respondents/OPs and reached the conclusion that the EJ Log maintained by the ATM of Canara Bank has some mechanical problems and could not disburse the amount of Rs. 7,800/- to the appellant/complainant. Ld. District Forum directed respondent-1/OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs. 7800/- alongwith bank interest from the date of use of the ATM till the date of realization alongwith Rs. 3000/- towards mental agony. In our view the Ld. District Forum has passed a well reasoned order which needs no interference. The compensation awarded by the District Forum is adequate, keeping in view that the disputed amount was of Rs. 7,800/- on which interest of bank rate is awarded, Rs. 3,000/- is also awarded towards compensation. Further award of compensation is a discretion of the fora. There is nothing on record to show that discretion has been exercised arbitrarily.
14. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out to enhance the compensation. Appeal stands dismissed.
15. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties free of costs and also to the concerned District Forum. The record of the District Forum be sent back forthwith. Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

​

(Salma Noor)

Member

​