West Bengal

Burdwan

CC/141/2014

Gopal Chandra Banerjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Jayanta Koner

08 Jan 2015

ORDER

JUDGEMENT

 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as he did not get required amount from the ATM counter of the OP-2, being a customer of the OP-1.

The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he is an account holder of the OP-1 which office is situated within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Not only that the office of the OP-2 is also within this jurisdiction. On 01.4.2013 due to urgent need of money for Rs. 10,000=00 he went to the ATM counter of the

1

OP-2 near Town Hall, Burdwan for withdrawal from his SB account lying with the OP-1. After operation instead of Rs. 10,000=00 he got only Rs. 3,000=00 as the said amount came out from the ATM counter, though request was made by him for Rs. 10,000=00. Due to such incident he became worried and informed the entire matter to the Bank verbally as well as lodged a written complaint to the OP-1 requesting to credit the missing amount of Rs. 7,000=00 in his account. On 27.6.2013 after lapse of more than months he noticed that a sum of Rs. 3,000=00 only has been credited in his account instead of Rs. 7,000=00. As till date Rs. 4,000=00 has not been credited in his account he had to pass his domestic life with deep agony and anxiety. On 28.3.2014 the complainant issued a notice to the OP-1 which was received by it on the same date for making payment of Rs. 4,000=00 towards balance amount, but till date the OP-1 did not pay the said amount. Due to such unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the complainant has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the Ops for making payment of Rs. 4,000=00 which has been illegally deducted from his account, compensation towards unfair trade practice Rs. 4,000=00, for deficiency in service to the tune of Rs. 8,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000=00 along with other reliefs.  The complaint has been contested by OP-1 by filing written version wherein it is stated that being a customer of Op-1 the complainant has ATM facility against his account and by using the ATM cum debit card he used to withdraw money from different ATM counters. On 01.4.2013 the complainant for the first time lodged one complaint before this OP and after receipt of the same the Op-1 came to know that on 01.4.2013 the complainant used his ATM cum debit card for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000=00 from the Automated Teller Machine belonging to and installed by the UBI at Town Hall, Burdwan. After operation of the card the complainant lodged the complaint before this Op alleging that he had received Rs. 3,000=00 only instead of Rs. 10,000=00 from the ATM. In his complaint his further allegation was that the Bank authority has debited Rs. 7,000=00 from his account. Though such lodgment of such complaint the complainant claimed immediate reimbursement of Rs. 7,000=00 in his account. The OP-1 has contended that since the transaction was

2

done at the OP-2 Bank’s ATM premises, the amount has to be claimed from the said bank i.e. the OP-2. Inspite of this upon receipt of the complaint the OP-1 immediately intimated the entire fact to the OP-2 and requested to resolve the matter as early as possible. Thereafter regular follow up has been done by the OP-1; discussion was made with the OP-2 sincerely with the local Asst. Manager. The Op-2 has informed the OP-1 that on that particular date there was excess cash of Rs. 6,000=00 found at the ATM’s code of the OP-2 on 02.4.2013. Due to repeated persuasion on behalf of the OP-1, the OP-2 showing its good gesture agreed to credit Rs. 3,000=00 to the complainant’s account though the allegation of the complainant for Rs. 7,000=00 did not tally with the excess cash recovered from the ATM machine on 02.4.2013. Lastly the OP-2 approved the claim of the complainant for Rs. 3,000=00 and the OP-1 immediately informed the said fact to the complainant and accordingly the complainant agreed to accept Rs. 3,000=00 approved by the OP-2. After receiving the said amount the complainant lodged this complaint claiming reimbursement of Rs. 7,000=00 in his SB account. The OP-1 again discussed the matter with the Claim Redressal Agency of the UBI and the UBI has rejected in straightway the claim of the complainant stating that the customer forgot to collect cash from the counter and for this reason he is only responsible. The Op-2 has intimated the said fact to the Op-1 through an e-mail. The OP-1 has further mentioned that the ATM machines are installed by several banks throughout the country supported by the highest technology and excellent surveillance. Several account holders are utilizing the ATM facility regularly. In the case in hand as per JP log the transaction was a successful transaction and apparently he had forgotten to collect the cash from the ATM counter and for this reason there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of this OP. According to the OP-1 this complaint is a vexatious one as the complainant after receipt of Rs. 3,000=00 has filed this case praying reimbursement of Rs. 7,000=00, for this reason prayer is made by the OP-1 for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

3

The complainant and the OP-1 have filed some papers and documents in support of their respective contentions. Petition of complaint, as well as, the written version of the OP-1 has been filed on affidavit.

From the record it is evident that inspite of good service upon the OP-2, the OP-2 did  not turn up to contest this complaint either personally or through its ld. Advocate by filing written version. So this complaint was taken up for argument ex parte against the OP-2.

We have carefully gone through the entire record and documents and heard argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and the OP-1 at length. It is seen by us that admittedly on 01.4.2013 the complainant went to the ATM counter of the OP-2 for withdrawal a sum of Rs. 10,000=00 from his SB account lying with the OP-1. The allegation of the complainant is that instead of Rs. 10,000=00 he got only Rs. 3,000=00 from the ATM counter. It is stated by the complainant that being perplexed with the said incident he informed his banker verbally and at a later stage he lodged a written complaint before the OP-1 requesting for crediting the missing of Rs. 7,000=00 in his SB account. After lapse of more than two months he noticed that a sum of Rs. 3,000=00 has been credited in his account instead of Rs. 7,000=00. As the balance of Rs. 4,000=00 has not been credited as yet i.e. till filing of this complaint, he had to approach before this ld. Forum by initiating this complaint praying for some reliefs. On 28.3.2014 he issued one notice upon the OP-1 for making payment of balance of amount of Rs. 4,000=00 but no fruitful result has been yielded. In respect of non-receipt of Rs. 7,000=00 by the complainant no document is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant. The ATM transaction slip filed by the complainant clearly reveals that the transaction for Rs. 10,000=00 was satisfactory. But the complainant has made allegation before the OP-1 that he did not receive Rs. 7,000=00 from the ATM counter by using his ATM cum debit card issued by the OP-1 from the ATM counter of the OP-2. In the complaint letter he has mentioned that instead of Rs. 10,000=00 he only received Rs. 3,000=00. From the written version of the OP-1 it is evident that upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the OP-1

4

takes active step with the OP-2 stating that the complainant being the customer of the OP-1 did not receive Rs. 7,000=00 from the ATM counter of the OP-2. Though the OP-2 did not contest the complaint by filing written version but from the corresponding letter it is evident that upon receipt of the formation from OP-1 the OP-2 started an enquiry and it was revealed before it that on that date there was excess balance of Rs. 6,000=00 in the particular ATM counter of the OP-2. So showing their good gesture the OP-2 has credited Rs. 3,000=00 in the account of the complainant through the OP-1. Therefore according to the complainant the balance of amount of Rs. 4,000=00 has not been received by him till filing of this complaint. We are unable to direct in this respect either to the OP-1 or to the OP-2 for making payment of Rs. 4,000=00 to the complainant as the complainant has failed to establish his complaint before this ld. Forum by adducing cogent document that he did not receive the entire amount. It is true that the OP-2 has made payment of Rs. 3,000=00 to the complainant due to excess amount for showing their good gesture but without any evidence it is quite impossible for us to direct the OP-2 further for making payment of the balance amount, as prayed for by the complainant to him. It is pertinent to mention herein that thought the OP-2 has made payment of
Rs. 3,000=00 in the SB account of the complainant but based on what banking law the OP-2 done the same, the respective law has not been shown to the Ld. Forum. The Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 has only placed the Xerox copy of the e-mail made by and between the OP-1 & OP-2 before the Ld. Forum but in this respect also one question has cropped up in our mind that on what basis or whether there is any RBI guideline or law in what capacity the OP-1 has credited the amount of Rs. 3,000=00 in the account of the complainant. We all know Bank has no money and deals only the public money and for this reason Bank has no scope for showing their good gesture. What the Bank is done that should be done as per Banking law. The Bank cannot disobey its rules and regulations but in the case in hand neither the OP-1 nor the OP-2 has shown us any Banking law in their favour which prompted them to credit the amount in the account of the complainant. In that respect we are to say the OP-2 has informed the OP-1 that on the questioned

5

date there was excess amount of Rs. 6,000=00 and out of the said amount Rs. 3,000=00 has been paid to the complainant, but how the OP-2 has utilized balance Rs. 3,000=00, the said picture is not clear to us. Moreover, when the OP-2 showed their good gesture by making payment of Rs. 3,000=00, then why not Rs. 6,000=00 has been paid to the complainant for showing their more good gesture. The OP-1 is also silent in this point but as there is no evidence on behalf of the complainant to prove his complaint we are handicapped to pass any order in favour of the complainant. But the Bank is directed to be more vigilant in future in utilizing the public money. Public money is not synonymous with good gesture. As per settled law onus lies to prove the case upon the shoulder of the complainant, not the OPs. As in the case in hand the complainant has failed to prove his complaint with proper evidence and documents, the complaint fails.

Going by the foregoing discussion, hence, it is, ordered that the complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP-1 without any cost and also dismissed ex parte against the OP-2 without any cost.

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                                

                                                                                                                    

 

                  (Silpi Majumder)

                        Member

                DCDRF, Burdwan

 

                                                         (Durga Sankar Das)                             (Silpi Majumder)

                                                            Member                                              Member   

                                                         DCDRF, Burdwan                               DCDRF, Burdwan