Date of Filing : 12.06.2017 Date of Final Order : 24.11.2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The case of the Complainant is in brief that being a bonafied customer of the O.P. 1 Bank the Complainant intended to withdraw some money went to the ATM counter of the O.P. NO. 2 Bank. The Complainant swipes his card for withdrawing of Rs. 10,000/- only and received the same after a successful transaction. Thereafter, after updating his passbook the Complainant noticed that a sum of Rs. 10017/- two times has been debited from his account on that day. The Complainant then made contact the customer care centre over telephone also with the O.P. banks but no fruitful result came out. By not getting any response from the O.Ps the Complainant wrote a complaint before the O.P. No. 1 on 20.05.2015 and prayed for CCTV footage redress the said dispute. The O.P. NO. 1 wrongfully deducted the amount of Rs. 20,034/- from the account of the Complainant instead of 10,017/- but even after repeated requests the bank authority did not take any step. After waiting a long time the Complainant submitted a written complaint before the A/D, CA & FBP, Cooch Behar for redressing the above dispute. The O.P. No. 1 appeared before Mediation and assured that within fifteen working days the bank will resolve the dispute. Ultimately the O.P. No. 1 failed to do that for which finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case seeking redress and relief as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
In the case in hand the O.P. no. 1 appeared before this Forum but the O.P. No. 2 did not come forward despite receiving the notice. Thus, this case proceeded with ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2.
In its turn the O.P. No1 by filing W/V contested the case contending inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable in its present form as well as in law also the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present case. The contention of the O.P. is that the Complainant on 16.05.2015 went to the ATM counter of Central Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch for withdrawing of Rs. 10,000/- from his S/B Account No. 08280100008124. The said transaction was successful one and automatically Rs. 10,000/- only debited from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant. The further contention of this O.P. is that after receiving complaint from the Complainant the O.P. No. 1 informed and forwarded the matter to the O.P. No. 2 i.e. the Central Bank, Cooch Behar Branch but the O.P. No. 2 did not take any step any step in this regard. This O.P. further contended that as the Complainant withdrew the money from the ATM counter of the O.P. No. 2 then total liability lies upon the O.P. No. 2. Thus, this O.P. prayed that it has no deficiency and the present case liable to be dismissed with sufficient cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants? If so, are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the documents of the Complainant and other materials on record and heard the argument advanced by the agent of the parties at a length. Perused also the Evidence on affidavit, W/Ar. of the Complainants and Opposite Parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant is the bonafied customer of the O.P. No. 1 having an S/B Account bearing No. 08280100008124. The Complainant for withdrawing the money used the ATM of the O.P. No. 2 i.e. he hired the service of the O.P. NO. 2 bank. Thus, the relation between the O.Ps with the Complainant so established from the record that the Complainant is the bank and took loan from the O.P. Bank. Hence, the Complainants are the Consumer of the O.P. Bank.
Point No.2.
The Opposite Parties in this case have running their office within this district and the complaint value of this case is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and sake of brevity.
Admittedly, the Complainant went to the ATM counter of the O.P. No. 2 intended to withdraw Rs. 10,000/-. It is the case of the Complainant that he swipe his ATM card for one time to withdraw Rs. 10,000/-. The said transaction was successful and the Complainant received Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter by updating the pass book it was revealed that on the same day the amount of Rs. 10,017/- had been debited from his account two times. The Complainant made contact to the O.Ps but to no good.
Annexure “A-1” goes to show that Rs. 10,017/- has been debited two times on 16.05.2015 vide transaction No. CWDR/678124996157/16 and CWDR /678124996103 /16
Annexure “B” reveals that the Complainant on 20.05.2015 made a written complaint to the O.P. No.1 narrating the incident.
It is pertinent to mention that the O.P. No. 1 received the complaint from the Complainant on 12.06.2015. The O.P. No.1 took plea that after receiving the complaint the O.P. No. 1 forwarded the same through email to the O.P. No. 2 but there is no single scrap of paper to show that the O.P. no. 1 took proper step in due time. Further, the Manager, representative of O.P. Bank appeared 29.12.2016 before mediation Table and stated that they had lodge a complaint through system but already 120 days has been elapsed for which the dispute cannot be dissolved.
It is also pertinent to mention that that the Complainant on 20.05.2015 made a written complaint to the O.P. No.1 narrating the incident and the O.P. No. 1 received the complaint from the Complainant on 12.06.2015. Thereafter, the O.P. No.1 was sitting idle for a long period for which the stipulated time has been expired. There is no lacuna on the part of the Complainant for such delay.
It is true that the PIN and the ATM card were in the custody of the Complainant. The Complainant by swearing an affidavit stated that he only received Rs. 10,000/- on 16.05.2015 from the ATM counter of the O.P. No. 2 and the same amount has been further deducted from his account by the Bank, i.e. the O.P. No. 1. May it was happened due to fault of the system, but neither the O.P. No. 1 nor the O.P. No. 2 (Ex-parte) filed any cogent document for determining the actual truth. If there was any fault of system the bank reversed the said amount that has been deducted 2nd times but in this case the deducted amount has not been reversed in the account of the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 in its W/V as well as in Evidence on affidavit clearly stated that withdraw of Rs. 10,000/- was a successful transaction and only Rs. 10,000/- has been debited from the account of the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 cleverly avoided to mention the transaction No. of the said withdrawal though document reveals that the O.P. No. 1 debited Rs. 10.017/- two times on the same day from the account of the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 failed to give any satisfactory reply against the allegation made by the Complainant of wrongfully deduction of Rs 10,017/-.
Further, the O.P. No. 2 also did not come forward before this Forum despite receiving the notice which means it has nothing to say against the allegation made by the Complainant. Besides, the Complainant used the ATM of O.P. NO. 2 bank for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/-. The O.P. No. 2 did not co-operate to resolve the dispute by adducing any cogent documents as to the deduction of excess amount from the account of the Complainant by the O.P. No.1 for which the deficiency in service cannot be ruled out also against the O.P. No. 2.
Thus, considering the above, we have reason to believe that there is gross negligence of the O.Ps. by debiting Rs.10,017/- from the account of the Complainant and the Complainant must be compensated.
Thus, the complaint succeeds.
Hence ,
it is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 with cost and allowed Ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2 with cost. The Complainant do get an award of Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost from the O.Ps.
The O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs. 10,017/- along with interest @ 6% from 16.05.2015 till the realization to the Complainant. The O.Ps. are hereby further directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service.
The O.Ps. to comply with the order jointly and severally within 45 days from this date of this order, failure of which the O.Ps. shall have to pay @ Rs.50/- each for each days delay, by depositing the accrued amount if any in this regard, in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal after the expiry of the stipulated period above.
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 will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
