Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The financial imbroglio in withdrawing money faced by the Complainant drove him to take recourse of this Commission for redressal of his grievance. The basic fact of the said grievance of the Complainant is reduced herein below in black and white to the extent that the Complainant Mr. Rafikul Alam is a customer of OP bank being A/C No.4098101003837. On 16.10.21 he tried to withdraw money by using his ATM card but after pushing suddenly the ATM was stopped and the Complainant did not receive money. Subsequently, Complainant informed the total matter before the OP and the OP assured the Complainant that disputed amount of Rs.5,000/- would be credited within short period. Thereafter several times Complainant requested the OP to show the CC TV footage and JP log of ATM but till today OP did not show CC TV footage and JP log before the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged two written complaint on 28.10.21 and 28.12.21 but OP bank could not solve the problem. Finally having found no alternative the Complainant filed this complaint petition before this Commission with a prayer for refund of said sum of Rs.5,000/- and pay Rs.30,000/- as deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost in the form of an award in his favour.
The positive defence case of the OP in brief is that for non-withdrawal of money from the ATM Kiosk the Complainant lodged a written complaint to the OP bank which referred the matter to ATM section Kolkata through e-mail dated 23.11.21 at 5.13 P.M. Through e-mail ATM cash Tally Delhi sent the confirmation about the transaction status which they confirmed that the transaction was successful. So, the OP bank is not liable to pay the amount. The OP therefore claimed that the complaint is liable to the dismissed with cost.
The specific allegation and the denial thereof as well as the defence case of the OP led this Commission to ascertain the following points in dispute.
Points for determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the activities of the OP amount to deficiency in service?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
After perusing the entire case record it transpires that OP Canara Bank, Tufanganj Branch denied and disputed the major allegations but did not plead that the Complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act. However having perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence in the case record we are of the opinion that the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered on behalf of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
This point relates to ascertainment as to whether the activities of the OP amount to deficiency in service. It is the admitted position that the Complainant Rafikul Alam is a customer of OP bank. There is no denial to the fact by OP. The Complainant in order to establish the claim filed the written complaint to the OP bank showing that a sum of Rs.5,000/- could not be received by the Complainant in the A/C No.4098101006837. The Op did not deny that the ATM card was not used on the given date and time.
The OP also did not file any JP log wherefrom it could be ascertained that the said transaction on the given date and time was successful or not. From the pass book of the Complainant it also transpires that on 16.10.21 a sum of Rs.5,000/- was debited from the account of the Complainant by means of use of ATM. Neither the OP bank cross-examined the Complainant against the specific evidence in regard to use of ATM by Complainant and failure to receive the said sum of Rs.5,000/- on that particular date and time.
Regard being also had to the evidence of the OP inter alia that the bank took all possible measures in order to resolve the grievance of the Complainant.
It is further evident from the case record that the Complainant left no stone unturned for redressal of his grievance through different correspondences and finally the Complainant filed this complaint petition.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits one ejectment slip but no transaction is shown in favour of the Complainant in A/C No. 4098101006837 of the Complainant.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence in the case record and in the backdrop of the observation made herein above it stands well proved that the Complainant did not get the sum of Rs.5,000/- by using ATM card on the inauspicious date of 16.10.2022 but it was debited from his account. The entire activities of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service.
Accordingly, point No.2 is answered on behalf of Complainant.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Previously I have ascertained both the Point No. 1 & 2 in favour of Complainant. Point No. 3 & 4 are corollary to Point No.1 & 2 since these issues are decided on behalf of Complainant. So issue No. 3 & 4 are also decided on behalf of the Complainant.
Consequently, the case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/9/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award of Rs.5,000/- as refund of the amount which is unfairly deducted. The Op is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation.
The OP Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 days of passing the order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded sum.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
