Haryana

Ambala

CC/133/2017

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Kumar

22 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 133 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 09.05.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 22.06.2018

 

 

Ramesh Kumar aged about 49 years son of Late Shri Om Parkash, resident of Village Rampur, Post Office-Bihta, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

Vs.

 

1.       The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Bihta, District Ambala.

 

2.       O.Batsman Officer, Rserve Bank of India, Sector-09, Chandigarh. 

 

 

  ….….Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

 

                  

Present:       Sh. Satish Kumar,  counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. P.K.Bansal, counsel for Op No.1.

                   OP No.2 given up by the complainant on dated 12.5.2017.

 

 

ORDER:

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that he has been maintaining his saving Bank Account No.50136703790 in the Bank of the OP No.1. He is also holder of a ATM of Allahabad Bank. On 27.10.2016, someone has withdrawn Rs.53,000/-from the abovesaid saving account of the complainant through using his ATM and the complainant  was having no any information about this withdrawal and this was pointed out to him when he approached the OP No.1 for effecting entry in the Pass Book. After coming to know about the illegal withdrawal by someone else, the complainant enquired from his family members, but he was surprised when he was disclosed that no one from his family  has withdrawn any money  by using ATM, at which the complainant  approached the OP No.1 and requested to disclose, who has withdrawn Rs.53,000-/ by using his ATM and further requested to take video footings on 27.10.2016 and 28.10.2016 and the OP No.1 assured the complainant that he will be disclosed about the facts on verifying the records but nothing was happened and consequently the complainant  also reported about this illegality to the OP No.2 but even then nothing was happened by now. The complainant also stated that Ops are avoiding to proceed as per law against the culprits. Under the constrained circumstances, the complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 19.12.2016 but the OPs are adamant and only issued a formal letter dated 30.12.2016 in response to the said legal notice.  Thus the Ops are liable for damages caused by the Ops due to mental tension, harassment and agony, besides financial loss etc. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notices, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and submitted that the password for operating the bank account is totally secret and nobody knows about it except the complainant until unless it is not disclosed to any one by the ATM holder, so question of withdrawal of the money by other person does not arise. In the present, the transactions & PSCH transactions were made at New Delhi  on 26.10.2016 & 27.10.2016 which clearly shows that the complainant has shared his password/PIN etc. to someone else who had made these transactions. It is pertinent   to mention here that after withdrawal of money the same is being conveyed to the Account Holder on his mobile through SMS. However, on the complaint of complainant, the investigation was made in depth and the detailed transactions list was searched. The known person of the complainant or his family member with whom might have share his password/Pin visited Delhi and made these transaction and the same have come in the knowledge of the complainant lateron. The Bank/OP No.1 has no concern with the ATM of complainant nor have any interest in the same. Therefore, the Ops are not rendered any deficiency of services and unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 & annexure C-11 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-17 and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the both the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Case of the complainant is that amount of Rs. 53,000/- has been withdrawn by making the use of his ATM card by someone unknown person at New Delhi. It is not where the case of the complainant that his ATM card has been stolen. We have also perused the Annexure C-1, it is mentioned that the complainant had surrendered the ATM card and required for issuance of new ATM in lieu of his old ATM card  to his bank i.e. OP . As per the version of the complainant his ATM has been mis-used by un-known on dated 27.10.2016 & 28.10.2016 then how he received the same back said ATM for surrendered to the issuance of the new one. The version of the complainant seem to be highly doubtful and it might be possible that he has allowed somebody else to make the withdrawal from the ATM of bank at Delhi by sharing his ATM pincode/password. No criminal proceeding has been initiated proceeded against anyone. Furthermore, present complaint has been filed on 09.05.2017 whereas incident took place on 27.10.2016 and 28.10.2016 i.e. after gap of more than six months. The complainant has moved an application on 30.10.2017 for directing the OP to produce the concerned ATM CCTV footage of dated 27.10.2016 and 28.10.2016 about the withdrawal of Rs. 53,000/-.

5.               It is clear from the evidence the incident for withdrawal of the alleged amount took place on 27.10.2016 & 28.10.2016. The complainant has moved an application on 30.10.2017 for providing the  CCTV footage but as such CCTV footage of the long period could not be preserved by the concern bank whose ATM machine has been used for withdrawal of the said amount of Rs. 53,000/-. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not denied the factum of the having SMS facilities in his mobile regarding  the transactions to place in his account with the OP.

6.               In view of the above discussion we are considered view that the complainant has failed to proved his case. Accordingly, the present compliant is liable to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 22.06.2018

                    

 

 

          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

Member                              President