C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/68
COMPLAINANT : Tanmoyee Ghosh,
W/o Tapas Kr. Ghosh,
Vill & P.O. Srirampur,
Dist. Burdwan,
Pin - 741316
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) The Manager,
AXIS Bank, Kalna Branch,
P.O. Kalna, Dist. Burdwan
- The Branch Manager
United Bank of India,
Nabadwip Branch, Poramatala,
P.O. & P.S. Nabadwip, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : th November, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she has an account with the OP AXIS bank, Kalna Branch and the bank issued one ATM cum Debit Card in her favour which is AKL 1136U of ATM, UBI, Nabadwip Branch. It is her further contention that on 14.09.09 at 6.30 pm she went to the ATM Counter at UBI, Nabadwip Branch for withdrawing Rs. 15,000/- and after processing the transactions the machine failed to deliver the money and one slip which came out from ATM machines there was a remark “Unable to dispense cash”. But three minutes after that, one slip came out from that machines showing the balance at Rs. 41,654.54 instead of actual balance of Rs. 56654.54, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- was already deducted from her account, though she actually did not get the money. On 15.09.09 she lodged a complaint to the Manager, AXIS bank regarding the wrong debiting of Rs. 15,000/- from her account and the manager verbally assured her that the said amount would be credited to her account within a short time, but to no effect. On 10.12.09 she sent a letter to the Manager intimating this and requesting to credit Rs. 15,000/- in her account, but the Manager did not act accordingly and till 15.04.10 no step was taken by the OP bank to credit the amount in her account. On 17.04.10 she again requested for crediting the said amount to her within 15 days, but to no effect. So having no other alternative she has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1 has not appeared in this case on receipt of notice. The OP No. 2 has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case against him as it is clear that the complainant has grievance against OP No. 1 as she has an account in the AXIS bank. OP No. 2 correctly noted unable to dispense cash in its slip, but the money was actually deducted from the account of the complainant by the AXIS bank. So the relief is to be given by the OP No. 1. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the OP No. 2, it is available on record that the complainant has an account with the OP No. 1, AXIS bank, Kalna Branch. The OP No. 1 issued one ATM cum debit card in her favour to operate it through UBI, Nabadwip Branch. From the case of the complainant it is on record that on 14.09.09 she went to withdraw Rs. 15,000/- from the UBI ATM counter, but the machine did not deliver the money. Rather a slip came out from the machine with the remark ‘unable to dispense cash’. But the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- was debited from her account by the OP No. 1 wrongly. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for the complainant submits that the above cited disputed amount of Rs. 15,000/- is already repaid by the OP No. 1, AXIS bank to the complainant during trial of this case. So she has prayed for compensation and litigation cost only. From her submission, we find that the OP AXIS bank has already repaid the claim amount of Rs. 15,000/- to this complainant, but the amount was deducted on 14.09.09. After a long period this amount is repaid by the OP No. 1 which we find as a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. Though the OP No. 1 repaid the above cited amount, he has not contested this case by filing any written version.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions, our considered view is that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service caused by the OP No. 1 and also for the harassment caused to the complainant. She is also entitled to get the litigation cost. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/68 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP No. 2 and exparte against the OP No 1. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as compensation along with interest at savings bank rate upon Rs. 15,000/- since 14.09.09 till this date along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The OP No. 1 is directed to make payment of the decretal amount to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount. We make no order against the OP No. 2.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
