Delhi

North East

CC/20/2022

Amar Jahan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.20/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Amar Jahan W/o Mohd. Afzal Ansari, R/o: F-27, Gali No. 1, Shastri Park, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	The Manager State Bank of India, Branch: G.T Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

07.02.2022 13.03.2024 30.07.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that she had an account in the bank of Opposite Party and she also had an ATM of the said account. Complainant stated that on 30.01.2022, the complainant had made shopping in Metro Mall, Seelampur, Delhi through ATM and after shopping she went to attend a marriage in Uttar Pradesh and on 06.02.2020 she returned to Delhi. Complainant stated that on 07.02.2020 at around 08:30 a.m. when she was withdrawing the money from ATM machine, Shastri Park, Delhi by using ATM card then the money was not withdrawn from the ATM. Complainant stated that she asked the security guard of the said ATM then he told that yesterday you had withdrawn the amount then after 24 hours she could withdraw the amount from the ATM. Complainant stated that after that she checked her mobile phone then she found that Rs. 50,000/- were deducted from her account. Complainant stated that she went to the Opposite Party and after checking the account of the Complainant by the officials of Opposite Party the Complainant came to know that in the morning of 07.02.2020 the total amount of Rs. 80,000/- was withdrawn from her account. Complainant stated that she immediately gave a written complaint to the Opposite Party in this regard on 07.02.2020. Complainant stated that officials of Opposite Party locked the ATM card of the Complainant and instructed her to give a written complaint in concerned police station. Complainant stated that on the same day she gave a written complaint to the D.C.P Seelampur in this regard and they assured that the officials of the Cyber Crime would take appropriate action in this regard very soon but no action was taken. Complainant stated that she several times visited the branch of Opposite Party and requested to credit the amount of Rs. 80,000/- but they always made one pretext or other and they did not credit the said amount. On 1^st February 2020, when she went to branch of Opposite Party and asked them to credit the money then they misbehaved with the complainant and threatened the Complainant. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to credit the amount of Rs. 80,000/- in the bank account of the Complainant along with compensation of  Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint filed by the Complainant is false and without merits. It is admitted that the Complainant has an account with it and was also using ATM card issued by the Opposite Party.  It is stated that on 06.02.2020 an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was withdrawn by the Complainant by using ATM card and the message in this regard was also sent to the Complainant. On the next date i.e. on 07.02.2020 other transactions of Rs. 40,000/- were also done and thus an amount of Rs. 80,000/- had been withdrawn from the account of the Complainant by using the ATM card. It is stated that message alert of all the transactions were sent to the Complainant. It is stated that the Opposite Party had demanded ej log, CCTV footage from the Central Bank of India and Laxmi Vilas Bank as the money was withdrawn from the ATMs of the said bank. It is stated that the same were not provided to the Opposite Party Bank timely. It is stated that on constant efforts the CCTV footage were provided and the same were shown to the Complainant but of no avail. It is denied that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3.  The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Dharam Pal Singh, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that on 06.02.2020 and 07.02.2020 the total amount of Rs. 80,000/- were withdrawn from her bank account by using ATM card. It is her case that she never withdrew this amount and she made a complaint with her bank immediately but nothing was done by the Opposite Party. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party Bank is that there is no deficiency on its part. Its case is that after the transactions message regarding withdrawal of the money from ATM were sent to the Complainant. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the CCTV footage was demanded from the Central Bank of India and Laxmi Vilas Bank but the same was not provided timely by the said banks.
7. Admittedly, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- were withdrawn from the ATMs and this amount was debited to the account of the Complainant. As discussed above, the case of the Complainant is that she did not withdraw the said amount. The Opposite Party has taken the defence that it has demanded the CCTV footage of the ATMs of the two banks namely Central Bank of India and Laxmi Vilas Bank but the said banks did not provide the CCTV footage timely. The Opposite Party Bank has did not specify the date when it demanded the CCTV footage from the above said two banks and when the same was provided to the Opposite Party. The case of the Opposite Party is that it has also demanded ej log from above said two banks. There is nothing on record to show that the said ej log was demanded or that the same were not provided by the said two banks. It is also imported to be noted that the Opposite Party did not conduct any internal investigation in this regard. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
8. In view of the above, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 80,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
9. Order announced on 30.07.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)