Haryana

Ambala

CC/54/2016

Banwari Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Bank of Broda - Opp.Party(s)

In person

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint No.54/16.

                                                          Date of Instt.18.01.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision: 19.01.2018.

 

Banwari Lal son of Sh.Chamela Ram resident of village Bhagwanpura Tehsil Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                             Vs.

 

1. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dosarka Tehsil Barara District Ambala.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dosarka Tehsil Barara District Yamuna Nagar.

                   ….Opposite parties.

          Complaint U/s 12 of CP Act, 1986

 

 BEFORE: SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER                                              

                  MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.       

 

Argued By: Sh.Jaswinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                         OP No.1 exparte.                                                                                       

                     OP No.2 has been      GIVEN UP vide order dated 21.12.2017.           

ORDER

 

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties with the averments that the complainant is having bank account bearing No.26040100002583 with Op No.1 and is also having an ATM facility on that number. On 22.10.2015 the complainant  tried to withdrew Rs.9,000/- from ATM of OP No.2 but the amount could be withdrawn due to some technical defect or otherwise but said he came to know about  deduction of above said amount from his bank account. The complainant approached Op No.1 vide complaint No.2015102313203163 and further visited Op No.2 but to no avail.  The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.

2.                          On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, estoppal and concealment of material facts etc. It is further submitted that the complainant is also availing Debid Card (ATM card) facility and the bank is providing bonafide public service without any negligence.  The complainant had withdrawn Rs.9,000/- on 22.10.2015 and the said transaction had been successful, therefore, the complainant has no suffered an loss. There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Bank. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   Op No.2 in its separate reply has taken many preliminary objections such as jurisdiction, locus standi, cause of action and concealment of material facts etc. It is submitted that complainant has not used the ATM of Op No.2 and he is trying to mislead the Forum by concealing material facts. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and even the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the Op No.2 has tendered documents Annexure R1 and Annexure R2.

                   During the proceedings of this complaint Op No.1 remained absent, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.07.2017 and the Op No.2 has been given up vide order dated 21.12.2017.

3.                          We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          As per version of the complainant he had tried to withdraw Rs.9,000/- from ATM branch of Op No.2 on 22.10.2015 but deduction has been shown in his account without disbursing any amount to him and regarding this he had moved an application dated 03.11.2015 Annexure C2 duly received by Op No.1 and further sent a reminder Annexure C3 on not taking any action on his application to the higher authorities but no refund of the amount of Rs.9,000/- has been made to him. The Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the transaction of Rs.9,000/- had been successful  and the amount was rightly deducted from his account.  This plea appears to plausible on one hand but it is strange that the OPs have not produced any CCTV footage/recording of the ATM cabin from where the complainant has allegedly tried for withdrawal through ATM card issued by Op No.1. Moreover, There is nothing on the file to show that as to what action the OP No.1 had taken on receiving the application Annexure C2 for refunding/returning of Rs.9,000/- wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant. In para No.5 of the complainant that the complainant has specifically mentioned that he had lodged his complaint vide application No.2015102313203163 but the Op No.1 not specifically disclosed the status of the application received by it. The Op No.1 had filed the reply on dated  11.04.2016 and the application Annexure C2 was received by it on 03.11.2015, therefore, it is clearly established that the matter was already in the knowledge of OP No.1 but it has failed to explain this till today.  The act and conduct of the Op No.1 which is a financial institution is not expected which shows that it has acted against the well-established bank principal and due to this wrongful loss has been caused to the complainant without any fault on his part. The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present case deserves acceptance.

5.                          In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Op No.1/bank is deficient in providing service to the complainant. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with cost which is assessed Rs. 3000/- against OP No.1 with a direction to pay Rs.9,000/- wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant by it alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of deduction i.e. 22.10.2015 till its realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 19.01.2018                                 

 

 

 

(ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (D.N.ARORA)     Member                          Member                        President