Delhi

East Delhi

CC/670/2014

DHRUB CHARITTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO BANK - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 670/14

 

Shri Dhrub Chatrittra

S/o Shri Sukh Ram

Off.: Chamber No. F-503

Kakardooma Courts Complex

Shahdara, Delhi                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Zonal Manager

UCO bank, UCO Bank Building

Patel Chowk, Sansad Marg

Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001

 

2. The Branch Manager

UCO Bank, Karkadooma Courts Complex

Shahdara, Delhi                                                                                 ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 29.08.2014

Judgment Reserved on:13.10.2016

Judgment Passed on: 04.11.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Dhrub Charittra has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Patel Chowk (OP-1) and the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Complex (OP-2).

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant was having saving bank account no. 90100110000410 with UCO Bank, Karkadooma Courts Complex and ATM Card no. 4283202078017326.  On 27.07.2012 at about 8.15 p.m., he went at UCO Bank ATM booth, Sunder Nagari for withdrawal of Rs. 500/-.  When he entered his debit card in ATM machine and feed the code number and an amount of Rs. 500/-, no money came out in the ATM machine.  At the same time, 2-3 persons came at ATM booth and they also tried to withdraw the money, but they did not succeed.  There was no security guard present there. 

On 29.07.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant read the message over his phone, he came to know that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was debited in the ATM account of the complainant.  He was surprised and on 30.07.2012, he narrated the incident in UCO Bank branch Karkardooma Courts.  He tried to give written complaint to the Manager of UCO Bank, which was refused by the Manager.  On 05.03.2014, he gave a written complaint alongwith documents such as photocopy of ATM card, photocopy of pass book, original copy of form dated 30.07.2012, photocopy of complaint dated 05.03.2014, two A.D. cards, receipt of Regd. A.D. dated 05.03.2014 etc.  Thus, he has prayed for return of money of Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. with compensation of Rs. 70,000/- on account of mental pain and agony.

3.        In the reply, UCO Bank (OP-1) have taken various pleas such as, the complaint was beyond the statutory period of two years of limitation, there was no deficiency of service.  it has been stated that ATM machine at Sunder Nagari, Delhi was functioning properly in satisfactory condition on 27.07.2012 and no complaint was received by the bank from any customer.  It is further stated that after the complainant, two other persons/customers operated ATM machine at Sunder Nagari for withdrawal of money and they withdrew the amount successfully.  It has also been stated that the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the ATM machine at Sunder Nagari on 27.07.2012 willfully and without any hastle, which was evident from a copy of UCO Bank ATM Reconciliation System Report.  It has further been stated that the complainant had not used UCO Bank ATM machine at Sunder Nagari on 27.07.2012 for withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/-, whereas he used DCB Bank ATM machine at Sunder Nagari.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as photocopy of pass book with statement (Annex.-A), photocopy of complaint made to Bank Manager, Karkardooma Courts (Annex.-B), copy of complaint made to Zonal Manager (Annex.-C), original postal receipts of sending Regd. letter to the Bank Manager UCO Bank, KKD Courts, Delhi and to the Zonal Manager of UCO Bank in Sansad Marg, Parliament Street (Ex. CW-1/1), acknowledgement (Ex. CW-1/2), copy of Annex.-IV of UCO Bank, KKD Courts (Annex.-D), photocopy of Annex. R-1 filed by the respondents (Annex.-E) and copy of Annex. R-2, filed by respondent marked (Annex.-F).

6.        Branch Manager (OP-2) have examined Shri K.K. Gupta, Manager, UCO Bank, KKD branch.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the written statement.  He has also got exhibited copy of ATM machine transaction history/sheet (Ex.RW-1/1) and ATM Reconciliation System Report (Ex.RW-1/2).

7.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant, Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Patel Chowk (OP-1), The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Complex (OP-2) and have perused the material placed on record. 

It has been argued on behalf of UCO Bank that the complainant has not used UCO Bank ATM, but he has used ATM, of DCB Bank. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that he has used the ATM of UCO Bank. 

8.        To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of Shri K.K. Gupta, Manager – UCO Bank and the documents, he has placed on record.  If a look is made to EX.RW1/1, it is noticed that on 27.07.2012, the complainant has used his ATM card no. 4283202078017326 and have withdrawn an amount of   Rs. 5,000/-  Ex.RW-1/2, which is Reconciliation Statement, also show that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant.  Thus, the fact remains that the complainant have used ATM of DCB Bank from where he has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 5,000/-.  He has not placed anything on record to show that the complainant has used ATM machine of UCO Bank at Sunder Nagari branch.  In the absence of that, his version cannot be believed.  On the contrary, he has made a false story. 

9.        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of UCO Bank (OP).  Therefore, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President