Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/201/2022

VINITA KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.201/22

 

 

In the matter of:

	Vinita Kumari D/o Shri Shyam Lal, B-98, First Floor, Gali No. 8, Shalimar Village, Delhi 110088	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.         3.	The Branch Manager Canara Bank Adarsh Nagar, Delhi 110033   State Bank of India D Block, 11, Parliament Street,  New Delhi 110001   Canara Bank 7th Floor, 38, Ansal Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

19.09.2018 06.04.2023 21.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant was having an account in the bank of Opposite Party No. 1 and bearing account no. 5913101000095. It is her case that between 16.07.2018 to 19.07.2018 an amount of Rs. 74,000/- was withdrawn from her account and the ATM card was with the Complainant. Thereafter, in this regard Complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party on 20.07.2018. Complainant lodged a NCR on 20.07.2018 vide SO No. 430/2014. Complainant also lodged a FIR with Police Station, Aman Vihar on 02.08.2018 vide FIR No. 0722. The Complainant visited the Police Station repeatedly and enquired about the status of the investigation conducted by the Police Officer. Complainant was assured by the official of Delhi Police that clarification in this regard would be given within one week. On 12.06.2018, Complainant again lodged a complaint through online vide CRN No. 1819AH6757. On 15.06.2018, Complainant received a confirmation massage from Delhi Police Crime Branch. After that the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party and requested the official of Opposite Party to return the amount of Rs. 74,000/- but every time the Complainant was falsely assured by the official of Opposite Party. Complainant also sent many emails to the Opposite Party but they did not respond. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs. 74,000/- with interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.
2. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal. It is stated that by using the ATM card from 16.07.2018 to 19.07.2018 the Complainant has withdrawn Rs. 74,000/- from the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2. As per the account statement all the transactions were successful. The Complainant reported the matter to it after four days of the first transaction. The Complainant has also got activated SMS services on her mobile phone and she had received message of every withdrawal of the money. Despite receiving the withdrawal messages she did not contact the Opposite Party which creates a doubt in her story. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the Complainant has no cause of action against it. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The perusal of the file shows that on 28.11.2019 Complainant stated that she did not want to file rejoinder.
5. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Anand Ballabh Sharma, Manager, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.
6. We have heard the Husband of the Complainant. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that she is having a saving bank account in the bank of Opposite Party No. 1. Her case is that from 16.06.2018 to 19.07.2018, an amount of Rs. 74,000/- was withdrawn from her account by using the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2. It is her case that her ATM card was with her. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No. 1 is that the Complainant did not inform it well in time even after receiving messages of withdrawal from it as the SMS service was activated on the mobile phone of the Complainant. It is stated that the Complainant informed it after four days of the first withdrawal.
7. As per the case of the Complainant, the amount was withdrawn by using ATM card whereas the ATM card was with her. If for the sake of arguments, we assume it that someone has copied/prepared duplicate ATM card of the Complainant, even then it is not possible to withdraw the cash from the ATM for the reason that four digit PIN is only known to the Complainant. Therefore, this assertion of the Complainant is not believable.
8. Further, as per the case of Opposite Party No. 1, the mobile phone of the Complainant was active for the SMS sent by the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant has not denied this averment as he opted not to file rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1. The Opposite Party No. 1 has also filed copy of the messages sent by it to the Complainant on her mobile phone and the status of the same shows that all the messages were delivered to the Complainant regarding withdrawal of money from her account. Therefore, it has to be believed that the Complainant received SMS after every withdrawal of money. The Complainant did not contact Opposite Party No. 1 after withdrawals of the amount from her account despite having received messages from the bank regarding withdrawal of money. The Complainant first time made the complaint to Opposite Party No. 1 on 20.07.2018 i.e. after four days of the start of withdrawal of money from her account. This also makes the case of the Complainant doubtful.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 21.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)