Judgment & Order dt. 08.12.2017
The instant complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, arises from flat refusal by the OPs to credit the amount of Rs.6,000/- to the account of the complainant.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant has a Salary Savings Account with UBI, Balurghat Branch and also a debit card of the same bank bearing No. 0235011815117 & 6070 7702 3508 2237 respectively. On 25.01.2017 he went to Axis Bank ATM at Nayabazar near Gangarampur to withdraw Rs.6,000/- only. All the formalities in the ATM were complied with by him, but neither any currency note nor any receipt came out of the ATM. Immediately thereafter, he got a message at his mobile phone that the said amount of Rs.6,000/- had been debited from his account. The matter was informed to the OP-1 Bank. As advised by the OP-1 bank, he sent an e-mail on 4.2.2017 complaining in detail the failure of his bank transaction at ATM of OP-2. The complainant also complained to the office of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Dakshin Dinajpur for remedy, but to no effect. Having failed to get his grievance redressed, the complainant has filed the instant case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and has also prayed for issuing a direction to the OP bank to pay Rs. 6,000/- which has been illegally debited from his bank account, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs;.1,500/- as litigation cost. Hence, the case.
The OP Banks have contested the case by filing separate written statements wherein it is admitted that the complainant approached the ATM at Nayabazar on 25.1.2017 at 10:04:27 hrs for withdrawal of Rs.6,000/-.
According to the version of the OP-2 i.e. the Axis Bank, the transaction of the complainant was successful as confirmed by their ATM cell transaction report that the complainant withdrew the money from the subject ATM that day. It is the further case of them that the OP-1 i.e. the United Bank of India should have informed them about the complaint lodged by the complainant. But nothing was informed to them by the OP-1 and as such they have failed to retrieve the CC TV footage after expiry of 90 (ninety) days from the date of occurrence. According to them, they have no deficiency in service in this regard.
The submission of OP-1 is that they sent the matter to OP-2 Bank immediately after receipt of the complaint from the complainant and it has been informed to them that the complaint of the complainant is rejected. So, according to them, they have also no deficiency in service in so far as the complaint is concerned.
Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute.
Points for determination:
- Are the OP-Banks liable for deficiency in service, if any, as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Evidence of the parties:
The complaint is treated as affidavit-in-chief of the complainant on his petition. The document on his behalf are filed vide from page No. 07 to page 15 and from page No. 137 to 141, kept in the record. On behalf of the OP-1 Bank, some documents are also filed, vide page No. 43 to 49. The OP-2 Bank has filed some documents, vide page No.127 to 133.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point Nos. 1 & 2:
Submission by all the parties have been into consideration for determining the points in issues vis-à-vis the materials on record.
The OP-1 i.e. U.B.I has filed documents to establish their initiative for redressal of the complaint made to them by the complainant on 4.2.2017 vide ATM complaint register at Page-49 and copy of ‘debit card care’ at page No.141 filed by the complainant. It reveals therefrom that the local Branch of U.B.I. with which the complainant maintains his account has forwarded the e-mail of the complaint to their own ATM data verifier. But the consequence of verification has been informed to the complainant on 29.3.2017 after submission of same complaints on 21.2.2017 and 5.3.2017 by their customer i.e. the complainant.
The OP-2 i.e. Axis Bank authority has submitted written version that they have got no such complaint within 90 days from the date of occurrence either from the OP-1 or from the complainant from whom they have obtained a prayer for copy of CC TV footage and cash balance report of the said ATM point on July 13, 2017, which is beyond 90 days. So, the CC TV footage has not been retrieved by them.
The complainant has filed documents to show that he had taken every step for redemption of his forfeited money of Rs.6,000/- as advised by the Bank authority in due time.
The OP-1 should have taken positive initiative to detect whether the money was actually withdrawn by the complainant or not. It could have been detected successfully, had the Axis Bank been informed in proper time by the OP-1. There is no latches on the part of the complainant and he is seen to have brought the ATM failed transaction to the notice of OP-1, as is revealed from the two documents referred to above. But the OP-1 has not taken any fruitful step without mere referring the matter to their web site in mechanical manner. Now, footage of CC TV is not available and it has been stated by the Axis Bank that it cannot be retrieved after expiry of 90 days from the date of disputed transaction. So, it is found that OP-1 acted in lackadaisical manner and this nonchalant way of action on the part of OP-1 has caused mischief to the innocent customer i.e. complainant. Here lies the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 Bank.
Now to say a few words about the OP-2 i.e. Axis Bank and unless it is said, the discussion, as it appears to us, will remain imperfect. In the written version filed by OP-2 it has been averred that “the ATM cell has also confirmed that there was no overage available in the said ATM”. But it is not known to us why the said record has not been produced before the Forum. The OP-2 could have produced the said record / register before the Forum to prove their point. We do not know why the Forum has been deprived of any access to that record. Is it the fear of the cat being out of the bag? Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that non-production of that record which seems to be a vital one for determination of a case of such kind is also a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2 i.e. the Axis Bank.
We know very well how an ordinary person who lives on the meager income of him will suffer when his hard-earned money goes on waste. The complainant has certainly sustained physical and mental harassment in pursuing his complaint from the date of failed transaction till today. He is deemed entitled to compensation for such kind of harassment.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with cost which is quantified at Rs.1,000/- only.
Both the banks i.e. OP Nos. 1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to credit Rs.6,000/- in equal proportion to the account of the complainant maintained with the OP -1 bank and also to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as the litigation cost as aforesaid within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount will bear interest @12% p.a. till full realization.
Let a free copy of the same be supplied to the concerned parties forthwith.
