Judgement dt. 27-06-2017

          This is a complaint made by one Tanmay Mukherjee of 345, Diamond Harbour Road, Behala, Kolkata-700 034 against Manager, Bank of Baroda, Behala Branch praying for direction upon OP to refund Rs.33,700/- in the account of the Complainant and also compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- .

          In brief the facts are that Complainant in the year 2015 opened a Savings Bank Account and deposited some amount in that account. He was issued a Debit Card by the Bank. Complainant went to the Bank on 2/11/2016 for updating his account and saw that balance were deducted to the tune of Rs.33,700/- from his S.B.Account. Complainant informed this fact to the Bank Manager who directed him to file written complaint.

          On 3/11/2016 Complainant lodged a complaint and discussed the matter with the Manager. Further Complainant has stated that no action was taken by the Bank. Complainant wrote a letter to the Officer-in-charge of Behala Police Station on 8/12/2016. Complainant never handed over the Debit Card to any other person. As such the deduction of Rs.33,700/- is illegal.

          Complainant further states that the amount was deducted on five occasions i.e. on 2/8/2016, 3/8/2016, 4/8/2016, 6/8/2016 and 18/10/2016. So Complainant files this case. OP Bank files written version denying the allegations of Complainant and has submitted that there is no material in the allegations made by the Complainant and it observations to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          Complainant has filed certain copy of the documents to substantiate his allegations. On the contrary OP has also filed certain documents.

          On perusal of the record it appears that Complainant did not file affidavit-in-chief and so the case was fixed for filing evidence by OP. In the said evidence by OP Bank has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written version.

          It appears from the documents filed that Complainant has alleged that on five occasions fraudulent withdrawal were made and it continued for about two months in between Complainant made another five transactions. Further Complainant deposited Rs.1,500/- during this period. So it is accepted that Complainant would be aware of the balance in his account and plea taken by the Complainant does not appear to be sustainable.

          Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that after receiving complaint Bank did not take any step. This is deficiency in service. He further submitted that CCTV footage was not provided to establish that Complainant withdrew the amount.

          Complainant also made a FIR with Behala P.S. But he has not furnished any detail as to what happen of that FIR. This goes on to show that Complainant suppressed the facts which he ought not to have suppressed.

          So, after taking into account the facts and circumstances it appears that there was no deficiency in service.

          Ld. Advocate for OP referred to a decision passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2011(2)CPR 26 (NC) wherein it has been held that since the ATM Card or PIN remains in the custody of the Complainant (Consumer), the question of deficiency in service by the Bank does not arise.

          In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present complaint.

          Hence,

O R D E R E D

          CC/5/2017 is dismissed on contest.