DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
N1ORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 45/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
31.01.2017 21.02.2017 23.04.2018
Complainant - Vs- Opposite Party
Basisht Roy 1. The Branch Manager of
66/1 A, Guru Garden Road, Serampore, UCO Bank, Bidyut Bhavan,
P.O.- Prayash Nagar, P.S.- Serampore, Salt Lake, Sector-II Branch,
Hoogly, Kolkata - 700091
PIN :- 712249 2. The Branch Manager of
UCO Bank
49P, ½, N.K. Banerjee
Street, Rishra Branch,
Hoogly, PIN-712248
3. The Dy. General Manager
UCO Bank
Operations & Services
Department, Head Office-II
3 & 4, DD Block, Sector-I,
Salk Lake, Kolkata- 700064
P R E S E N T :- Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President
:- Sri Siddhartha Ganguli ………………………Member.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant :- Madhusudan Das & Bibhas Mondal
Ld. Advocate for the OPs :- Sarmishtha Mukherjee
J U D G E M E N T
An Application has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1996 alleging deficiency in service against the OPs and for not providing CCTV Footage and non-refunding the debited amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with compensation and litigation cost as stated in the complaint petition.
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is an account holder of SB A/C No. 17130110040218 of OP No. 1. He has been provided one ATM Card vide No. 6070661713000744 which was issued by the OP Bank in favour of the complainant.
It is the allegation of the complainant that on 17-07-2016 at about 3.55 pm. the complainant went to the Rishra Station ATM booth of the UCO Bank to withdraw Rs. 4,000/- and punched his ATM Card to the margin but no money dispensed by the ATM vending machine. After 5/6 months later, the complainant received one SMS in mobile that an amount of Rs. 10,000 has been debited from his Account.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member Cont……P/2
:2:
C.C. No. 45/2017
The complainant bewildered to see the SMS that he foreign amount of Rs. 4,000/- but no money has been dispensed by the said machine but his amount has been debited by amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant updated his SB A/C passbook and found that there was a debit of Rs. 10,000/- which was reflected in his Account.
The complainant immediately inform the matter to the OP1 in writing stating all the case, which wielded no results. On 03-09-2016 the complainant received a letter from the Chief Manager of the UCO Bank that the transaction was successful. No access cash has been received from the Rishra Branch. The complainant thereafter visited the OP No. 1 THE BRANCH MANAGER of UCO Bank and demanded to show the CCTV Footage of the concern both but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed too.
The complainant finding no other alternative approach before the Asst. Director C.A & F.B.P., Salt Lake for mediation but no mediation took place and a direction was given to him to file a specific case before the appropriate Forum for proper relief.
The complainant prays for the following reliefs:-
Relief Sought For:-
1. Give relief to display C.C. TV footage and to refund the illegally debited amount of the complainant Rs. 10,000/- along with compensation Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony of the complainant.
2. litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- may kindly be allowed in favour of the complainant.
3. any other relief or relives which is your complainant is legally entitled to get.
List of Document Enclosed:-
- demand Draft bearing No. 879801 dt. 27.12.2016 for Rs. 100/- drawn on Allahabad Bank & Rishra Branch.
ii. Xerox copy of ATM Slip.
iii. Xerox copy of passbook in the name of Basisht roy.
iv. Copy of a letter sent to the UCO Bank dt. 18.07.2016
v. E-mail message.
vi. Xerox copy of No excess cash Certificate dt. 16.08.2016
vii. Copy of a letter sent to the UCO Bank dt. 03.08.2016
viii. Copy of a letter receive from the UCO Bank dt. 03.09.2016
ix. complainant lodged a complaint before the Asstt. Director, C.A &
F.B.P, Salt Lake dt. 07.09.2016
x. Debit Card.
xi. Drop letter of the Asstt. Director, C.A. & F.B.P., Salt Lake dt.
25.10.2016
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member Cont……P/3
:3:
C.C. No. 45/2017
I hereby undertake to file the original copies of the documents mentioned above at the time of hearing.
Notices were sent to the OPs and OP No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed W/V. despite receiving notices the OP No. 2 and 3 did not appear and therefore an ex-parte Order was passed against the OP No. 2 and 3 and case is being proceeded an ex-parte against the OP No. 2 and 3. The OP No. 1 in his W/V denied all the averments made in the complaint petition and stated that the case is not maintainable. The OP also stated that the complainant is an SB A/C holder being No. 17130110040218 with the OP No. 1 and for such in order to enable the complainant to obtain cash withdrawal facilities a debit card bearing No. 60706617130007444 was provided to the complainant for his convenience at the ATM machines by the OPs. It is further stated by the Op1 that after receiving alleged complaint from the complainant regarding debiting of Rs. 10,000 /- from the ATM booth UCO Bank, Rishra Branch found no extra cash from the ATM on July 17, 2017 and the OP 1 inform the matter to the ATM cell at Mumbai along with the Rishra Branch and as per the records of the Bank the transaction was successful as per JP Roll. The OP no 1 intimated the said status to the complainant by a letter dt. 03.09.2016. it is further stated that the complainant ought to have file an FIR with the police concerned but he did not do so . As the transaction was successful the complainant had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- from the ATM machine which was reflected in the Bank A/C of the complainant and therefore the case of the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. It is further stated that the customers of the Bank are not entitled to get the C.C. TV footage of the transaction as alleged. The OP Bank stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant files evidence and also files B.N.A. The OP No. 1 also files evidence on his part and files B.N.A.
From the complaint Petition, W/V, evidences and other materials on record the following points have been framed:-
1. whether the complainant is on consumer under the OPs?
2. whether the OPs are negligent and deficient in service?
3. whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason:-
All the points have been taken together for the sake of brevity and for avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is the admitted position that the complainant is an A/C holder of the OP Bank and the complainant is maintaining a savings Bank A/C being No. 17130110040218 with the OP no. 1 bank and an ATM card has been provided to him which is linked with the said SB A/C. Therefore the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as per the definition given u/s 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act 1986.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member Cont……P/4
:4:
C.C. No. 45/2017
In order to ascertain whether the OPs are deficient or not we have to scrutinize the evidences of the parties again. The main point of determination in this case is that whether the complainant visited the ATM on 17.07.2016 at about 3.55pm. and withdrew money amounting to Rs. 10,000/- or not.
As per the evidence of the complainant, he went to the Rishra Station ATM booth of UCO Bank to withdraw Rs. 4,000/- and punched his ATM card to the machine but no money had been dispensed by the said ATM machine. The complainant got one message in his mobile phone shortly thereafter which showed that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had been withdrawn from the account of the complainant by the use of the ATM card. The documents annexed by the parties reveal that the said transaction was successful. The passbook of the complainant also reflected that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was debited from the A/C of the complainant. Therefore we can safely conclude that the complainant received the amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the ATM machine on the date and time as mentioned above and we find no monetary discrepancies in the books of A/Cs. But in this case the OP Bank did not provide C.C. TV footage to the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that despite repeated request the OP Bank did not provide him C.C. TV footage. In a case of disputed transaction through ATM, it is the incumbent duty upon the OP Bank to provide C.C TV footage. Had the Bank provided C.C. TV footage to the complainant it would have been crystal clear that who withdrew the money and what amount had been withdrawn, and the dispute could have been sorted out easily.
In a case reported in 2015/1 C.P.R. 797(N.C.) the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold that no cash from the account of the complainant could have been withdrawn without use of the ATM card which the petitioner Bank had issued to him along with use of the pin which the Bank had provided to him. If the complainant himself did not withdraw cash from the Bank on 10.11.2011, as is claimed by him, his ATM card must have been stolen or otherwise obtained by some unscrupulous person. Not only that, the ATM pin must have been either disclosed by the complainant to the person who withdrew cash from the Bank or he would not have kept it in safe custody as a result of which the person who withdrew the money through the use of the ATM could lay his hand on the said pin and later feed the pin in the ATM machine while using the ATM card issued to the complainant. Therefore, no deficiency in services is made out on account of the alleged fraudulent withdrawn of Rs. 10,000/- from the bank A/C of the complainant. The petitioner Bank was deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not making available a copy of the C.C. TV footage to him. Impugned order upheld. Revision disposed of.
In view of above decision of the Hon’ble National Commission we are of the view that the OP Bank is deficient in service by not providing the C.C. TV footage to the complainant. However we find no deficiency of the OP Bank on account of alleged withdrawn of Rs. 10,000/-. The Bank should show utmost sincerity while providing service to its customers.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member Cont……P/5
:5:
C.C. No. 45/2017
Considering the nature and the gravity of case and the mental agony sustained by the complainant we think that a compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- is just and proper in order to redress the complainant.
As the complainant files this case through CAB no order as to costs is awarded.
Hence
it is Ordered that the CC 45/2017 is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex-parte against the OP No. 2 and 3.
The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant as compensation within two months from the date of this Order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to put the order under execution for enforcement of the order as per the provision of C.P. Act, 1986.
Let a free copy of this Order be sent to the parties concerned.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
