DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 457/2017
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
24.08.2017 30.08.2017 16.10.2023
Complainant/s:- | - Susmita Ghosh, D/o Sri Sankar Kumar Ghosh
- Sankar Kumar Ghosh
S/o Late Kala Chand Ghosh Both are residing permanently at 44/1, R.B.C. Road, P.O & P.S. Naihati, District North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743165. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - The Manager,
Indian Bank Naihati Garifa Branch, P.O & P.S. Naihati, District North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743165. - The Zonal Manager of Indian Bank, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Pin – 700124, 64, K.N.C. Road.
- The Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Head Office, P.O. – G.P.O, 2, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700001.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction to the O.P to pay amount of Rs. 29,762/-, compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.
He alleged in the petition of complaint that both the Complainants have a joint account with the O.P No. 1 who is the representative of O.P No. 2 and 3. On 20/05/2016 one fraud transaction had made in the said account amounting to Rs. 45,774/- without any knowledge of the Complainants. Matter was duly intimated before the O/C, Naihati Police Station on 21/05/2016. He also made complaint before the O.P No. 1 on 20/05/2016 but did not get any fruitful result. ATM of the Complainants had been hacked and aforesaid amount was withdrawn from the aforesaid account.
After enquiry subsequently O.P No. 1-3 credited Rs. 16,012.90/- on 26/07/2016 but remaining amount of Rs. 29,762/- not yet credited in the account of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant filed this case. O.P no. 1-3 appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations. They categorically denied the entire allegations and further stated that Complainant is bound to prove the aforesaid allegations.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . .
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 457/2017
TRIAL
During trial, Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. O.P No. 1-3 filed questionnaires and Complainant gave answer. Affidavit-in-chief also filed on behalf of the O.P No. 1-3. Thereafter case has fixed for argument vide order dated 02/01/2020.
DOCUMENTS
Complainant filed the following documents at the time of filing of this case.
- Xerox copy of complaint to the Bank Manager of Allahabad Bank dated 20.05.2016.
- Xerox copy of Statement of Account (contains 2 pages).
- Xerox copy of complaint to the O/C of Naihati Police Station dated 21.05.2016.
- Original copy of unauthorised Visa Debit Card Transactions from Allahabad Bank, zonal office, Barasat.
- Original copy of ATM/POS/E-COMMERCE INFORMATION dated 07/06/2016.
- Original copy of Postal slip/receipt dated 29.07.2016 (3 copies)
- Xerox copy of legal notice dated 28.07.2016 attached therewith copy of unauthorised Visa Debit Card Transactions (2 pages).
- Xerox copy of statement record from the Complainant dated 03.09.2016.
- Original copy of complaint regarding unauthorised Visa Debit Card Transactions.
- Original copy of unauthorised ATM Transactions.
O.P did not file any documents in support of their contention.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA. O.P No. 1-3 filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant, affidavit-in-chief filed by the O.P No. 1-3, petition of complaint filed by the Complainant and documents on record. We have carefully gone through the same.
It is the main allegation of the Complainant that one fraud transaction has made in his account which is lying before the O.P no. 1-3 amounting to Rs. 45,774/- and he alleged the complaint before the O.P No. 1-3.
On perusal of letter dated 20/05/2016 (Xerox) issued by Complainant No. 1 in favour of the O.P No. 1, we find that she lodged complaint before the O.P No. 1 about the aforesaid fraud transaction amounting to Rs. 45,774/- and O.P No. 1 received the said letter by giving receiving endorsement.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . .
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 457/2017
On perusal of bank statement from 25/09/2014 to 21/09/2016 (Xerox) we find P.O.S (Point of Sale) ATM purch for different amount in total Rs. 45,774/-.
On 01/06/2016 O.P No. 3 gave a reply to the Complainant and submitted the details of transaction. By the said letter they advised the Complainant to take shelter before the police authorities.
On perusal of document dated 07/06/2016 (Xerox) we find that Complainant No. 1 made complaint before the O.P No. 1 in prescribed form on 07/06/2016. We also find that Ld. Advocate for the Complainant served lawyer’s notice upon O.P No. 3 on 28/07/2016. O.P / Bank issued a letter on 20/08/2016 to the Complainant No. 1 and wanted to meet with her. The point of discussion was made and said document has filed.
On perusal of letter dated 25/05/2017 (Xerox) issued by O.P Bank we find that they already credited Rs. 16,012.90/- in the account of the bank relating to four failed transactions. They stated in the said letter that as per information received from the ATM Bank office remaining three transactions were successful transactions. By letter dated 05/07/2017 O.P / Bank stated that no refund is given relating to successful transactions.
O.P / Bank i.e. O.P No. 3 in their W/V denied entire allegations of the Complainant but they did not said in their W/V that they had already refunded Rs. 16,012.90/- which established the case of the Complainant and that O.P no. 1-3 already refunded Rs. 16,012.90/-. O.P No. 1-3 stated in the BNA that they already paid back Rs. 16,012.90/-.
It is the defence of the O.P No. 1-3 that the transaction relating to Rs. 29,762/- are successful transactions but they did not file any documents before this Commission in support of the said fact. In absence of any satisfactory documents we are unable to accept the aforesaid defence of the O.P No. 1-3.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion we have no hesitation to hold that O.P No. 1-3 failed to established that successful transactions have made through P.O.S (Point of Sale) amounting Rs. 29,762/- from the account of the Complainants.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.P No. 1-3 are the service provider.
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . .
: : 4 : :
C.C. No. 457/2017
We also find from the record that Complainant has filed this case within the period of limitation and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid complaint.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established their grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to relief as per their prayer.
In the result, the present case succeeds.
Hence ,
It is ordered,
That the present case be and the same vide no. C.C./457/2017 is allowed on contest against the O.P no. 1-3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.P No. 1-3 in favour of the Complainant.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly or severally are directed to pay Rs. 29,762/- in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from this day failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of alleged transaction to till the date of actual payment.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this day.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly or severally are directed to comply the aforesaid directions within specified date failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution and O.P No. 1-3 are liable for all the consequences.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
