Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.

Dispute relating to ATM transaction dragged the Complainant to file the present case against the OP. The brief background of the case is that the Complainant Mimi Bardhan is Consumer/Customer O.P. No.1 of HDFC Bank Cooch Behar Branch, N.N. Road, P.O.-Cooch Behar having saving A/C No. 50100328707971 and ATM Card No.438624360260. On 6.11.20 due to serious illness of the Complainant as per permission of Complainant her husband pushed the ATM Card for withdrawing Rs.20,000/- . But he did not receive any cash. On the contrary, the complainant found that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deducted from the A/C of the Complainant. Thereafter the husband of the Complainant informed it to the OP, HDFC Bank who assured that the disputed amount would be credited to the account of the Complainant. After lapse of some time it was not credited. So the complainant filed a written Complaint to the OP through e-mail on 04.02.2021.The OP also received a registered complaint on 12.05.22. But did not reply it. The husband of the Complainant filed a complaint with the CA & FBP Department, Cooch Behar. Despite receiving notice O.P. did not appear there. The Complainant claimed to the OP to produce CCTV Footage and J.P. log but the OP did not produce it. Hence in the present case the Cause of action arose on 06.11.20 and on subsequent dates till 05.08.22. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award for Rs.20,000/- for actual deduction, Rs.80,000/- towards deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. Notice was served upon the OP. But the OP preferred not to contest the case.

From the document filed by the Complainant it is found that the notice was served upon the OP on 12.05.22. Despite receiving the notice the OP did not contest the case. So the case is heard ex-parte.

The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced oral evidence in the form of evidence on affidavit. Both the complainant Mimi Bardhan and her husband deposed as PW1 and PW2 respectively by filing evidence on affidavit.

It is important to consider that the ATM card actually stands in the name of the Complainant namely Mimi Bardhan. But on the un-fateful day the said ATM card bearing No 438624360260 was actually used by the husband of the Complainant, namely Arunavo Bardhan on 06.11.20 at the N.N. Road ATM Kiosk .

Question may arise as to why the ATM card was given to another person which is confidential and should not be handed over.

The OP preferred not to contest the case and as such no point of defence was made out in this case. However, since the commission has the duty to check all the documents before granting any relief to the litigant, so, after perusing the pleadings and the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the Complaint handed over the ATM card to her husband due to serious illness of the Complainant. The OP also did not raise this point at any stage as to why the said card was used by other person. In fact during exigency due to medical ground the complainant had urgent need of money and as such her husband Arunavo Bardhan used the ATM card on behalf of the Complainant.

It is the further case of the Complainant that despite pushing the ATM card by the husband of the complainant, money did not come out but the OP deducted Rs.20,000/- from the A/C of the Complainant. The Complainant adduced specific evidence in this regard by filing evidence on affidavit as well as documents.

Annexure-2 is the copy of ATM card and Annexure1 discloses that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was deducted from the A/C of the Complainant. All the one series document supports the contention  of the complainant.

The other documents like Complaint letter being Annexure-4, SMS Annexure-3 proceedings before CA Department being Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 being a letter issued by the CA Department to the husband of the complainant also corroborate the case of the Complainant.

The entire oral and Documentary evidence of the Complainant stands unchallenged and un-discarded since the case is heard ex-parte.

Having assessed the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and in the light of the discussion made herein above, the Commission comes to the finding the case stands proved ex-parte.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds ex-parte.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the CC Case No. CC/43/2022 be and the same is allowed ex-Parte with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The Complainant Mimi Bardhan do get an award for Rs.20,000/- towards actual money to be credited to her account, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. The O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order failing which  the OP shall pay the interest @ 6 %  per annum from the date of passing the Final order till the date of realization.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.

DA to note in the Trial Register.

Dictated and corrected by me.