DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 69 of   2017 

 

Miss Samita Das,

D/O- Sri Bhabesh Das,

Ramnagar Road No. 4,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura. …....…..…......Complainant.

 

           VERSUS

 

1. UCO Bank,

Zonal Office at Central Road,

Top Floor Agartala, Branch,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001.

 

2. The UCO Bank,

District Court Branch,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

District Court Complex,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001. …................. Opposite Parties.

 

3. ICICI Bank,

Represented by 

The Branch Manager of Agartala Branch,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, 

West Tripura. …........Proforma Opposite Party.

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C o u n s e l

For the Complainant : Sri Suman Bhattacharya,

  Smt. Sarbani Majumdar,

  Advocates.

  

For the O.Ps : Sri Amritlal Saha,

  Sri Joydeep Paul,

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  30.08.2018.

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by This case arises on the petitioner filed by Samita Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he was the customer of UCO Bank, Agartala. He went to Kolkata in the month of September 2016 and he used the ATM Card issued by the UCO  Bank for withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- from the Kakurgachi Branch ATM counter, West Bengal of ICICI Bank. He punched card for withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- but the cash did not come. The amount was deducted from his account. Complainant then lodged the complaint and UCO Bank credited the amount of Rs.10,000/-. But rest amount of Rs.15,000/- was not credited. Complainant wrote letter for refund of Rs.15,000/-. Advocate's notice was sent but the amount was not refunded nor credited in his account. Petitioner therefore claimed compensation and refund of the total amount Rs.65,000/-. 

2. O.P. UCO Bank appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that complaint is inconsistent. UCO Bank credited Rs. 10,000/- when his claim  in this regard is found correct. But the claim for refund of Rs.15,000/- is not supported by any evidence and therefore such claim is liable to be rejected. Rs.10,000/- actually disbursed on 17.09.16 as the amount   wrongly debited. So it was again credited on receipt of complaint through NFS cell that gives redress to all these ATM issues. Bank authority only could refer the matter to NFS Cell for redressing any grievance of the customer. The transaction relating to Rs.10,000/- withdrawal was successful in the ATM system of ICICI Bank, Kolkata. 

 

3. O.P. ICICI Bank, O.P. No.3 filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the alleged failed transaction had not been used in the ATM of the O.P. Bank.

 

4. On the basis of the contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the amount of Rs.15,000/- was wrongly debited from the account of the petitioner though it was not withdrawn by him?

(II) Whether there is any deficiency of service by the UCO Bank and ICICI Bank authority?

 

5. Petitioner produced the Advocate's notice, RL Slip, Reply, copy of Pass Book. Complainant produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the complainant. 

 

6. O.P. on the other hand produced the letter of ICICI Bank, transaction slip, also statement on affidavit of one Rajarshi Debnath and Lunjin Taran. 

 

7. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the points.

 

8. Petitioner in her statement on affidavit repeated  the version as stated in the complaint petition. She stated that Rs.15,000/- was not credited in her account.

 

9. We have gone through the copy of the pass book. Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- was shown withdrawn on 17.09.16 and 25.09.16. We have gone through the ATM transaction slip as produced by the ICICI Bank, Kakurgachi Branch. It appears that card used was in ATM counter Kakurgachi Branch. But from the transaction report it is found that the ATM was not punched in the counter of Kakurgachi, ICICI Bank. ICICI Bank cash tally certificate dated 23rd April 2018 also produced. From that cash Tally Certificate it is found that the cash was not lying in the ATM machine after withdrawal. Reversal is made in respect of cash Rs.10,000/- not for Rs. 25,000/-. ATM Switch Transaction Report of ICICI Bank also verified and therefore also nothing found to support that on 23.09.16, Rs.15,000/- in 2 steps 5 + 10 was taken. 

 

10. O.P.W. 1, Rajarshi  Debnath, Branch Manager, UCO Bank in his evidence stated that through system they made contact and found that false transaction of Rs.10,000/- was credited in the account of petitioner but other 2 transaction for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- in 2 steps was successful. So, there was no deficiency of service by the UCO Bank.

 

10. Lunjin Tarang in his evidence stated that details transaction of ICICI Bank at Kakurgachi  Branch ATM on 17.09.16  is submitted and on scrutiny it was revealed that Samita Das  made no transaction in Kakurgachi Branch on that day. On scrutiny of the evidence on record it is found that the transaction was not made by the ATM counter of Kakurgachi Branch on 17.09.16 for withdrawal of Rs.15,000/-. Amount of Rs.10,000/-  withdrawn on 23.09.16 was credited to his account. Other 2 transactions was successful as revealed from the transaction report and electronic report. Petitioner failed to prove that the transaction was not successful. No documents given in this regard. So, we can not rely on the submission of the petitioner. We come to the conclusion that Rs.15,000/- was actually taken by her. There was no deficiency of service by ICICI Bank and UCO Bank. Petitioner failed to prove the case. In view of our above findings this case is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost.  

 

     

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA