Delhi

East Delhi

CC/102/2018

MAHESH CHADHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

YES BANK - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        102/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                05/04/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               25/09/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        27/09/2019                                                                                                      

In matter of-

Mr Mahesh Chander Bhardwaj     

R/o C2/605 Capital Apartments

Vasundhara Enclave Delhi 110096……………………..…….………….Complainant

                                                                        

                                                                    Vs

1-The Branch Manager

Yes Bank, GF, Vinayak Hospital  

NH1, Sec. 27, Atta, Noida UP 120301  

 

2-The Manager

Oriental Bank of Commerce   

Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi 110096……………….……………………….Opponents

 

Complainant                                              In Person  

Opponent 1 Advo.                                    Mr Karanjiwala & Co. Advocates 

Opponent 2 Advo.                                    Mr. Amrendra Kumar Jha   

 

Quorum                                                      Sh Sukhdev Singh        President

                                                                     Dr P N Tiwari                Member                                                                                                   

                                                                     Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant had saving bank account with OP1/ Yes Bank vide account no. 00859370001785 and had ATM card also from OP1 (Ex CW1/1). On 22/04/2017 complainant wanted to withdraw Rs 6,500/- from ATM of OP2 Bank, but could not get amount. He received debit slip for Rs 6500/-, as transaction was successful (Ex CW1/1A), so immediately wrote to customer care of OP1 for supplying CCTV clip. Despite of repeated reminders to OP1 received reply stating that OP1 was contacting OP2 for supplying CCTV clip, but no satisfactory reply was received (Ex CW1/2). Complainant stated that RTI was filed to know the status of his complaints, but did not get reply (Ex CW1/3), so filed appeal with Information Appellate authority (Ex CW1/3A), but reply was not proper.

Complaint filed complaint for deficiency in service of OP1 and claimed reversal of Rs 6500/- and compensation Rs 30,000/- for harassment and Rs 25000/- for litigation charges.

 

OP1 submitted written statement and denied allegations in deficiency in their services. It was stated that ATM card was issued from OP1 branch. It was stated that complainant tried to for transaction thrice, but could not do so, but in his fourth transaction, amount Rs 6500/- were withdrawn. The reason of failure in transaction was putting wrong PIN code as evident from EJ log which was provided by the OP2 bank showing last transaction was successful (Ex OPW1/1). It was also stated by OP1 that the detail of cash details received from OP2 that no excess cash was left in ATM and also supported switch report showed that no excess cash was found. This proved that complainant had filed this complaint without evidence of deficiency of OP.

 

It was stated that as per citation as State Bank of India vs Om Prakash Saini, I(2013)CPJ 749 (NC) that withdrawn slip showed money was withdrawn, but no money was withdrawn means money was withdrawn though video footage had no bearing on claim of complainant as no other person complained about non dispense of money. As camera faces on the face of customers and not on the keys of ATM or PIN numbers and delivery window, so complaint had no merit. OP also submitted citation as Ravneet Singh Bagga vs KLM Airlines where it was stated that onus of proving deficiency of OP rest on the person alleging deficiency of OP. In State Bank of India vs KK Bhalla, II (2011) CPJ 106 (NC), it was held that merely CCTV footages were not available or CCTV not working on that day of withdrawal does not mean that money was withdrawn fraudulently as debit card and PIN was in the domain of complainant. No other person could withdraw money in absence of ATM card and PIN. So, contention of complainant was without any merits. Hence, all the allegations were without merit and complaint deserves dismissal.  

OP2/OBC Bank submitted written statement and stated that OP2 did not receive any complaint except RTI application which was replied in time under Right to Information Act, 2005. It was stated that consumer had no contract with OP2 so had no right to allege deficiency in services against OP2. Even appeal filed before First Appellate Authority was dismissed on 13/07/2018 as mo merits in appeal as no footage exist beyond 90 days (Ex OPW2/B. Both replies of RTI were on record (Ex OPW2/D). Hence there was no deficiency in their services.  

 

Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs and denied replies submitted. It was stated that OP1 and OP2 were in closed coallation. The CCTV footage was neither given even filing appeal of RTI nor was money reverted in his account maintained with OP1. Evidences were also submitted through his own affidavit where he affirmed that all evidences were correct and on record. He relied on all evidences as ATM card, debit slip and his written complaint as CW1/1 to CW1/3. So his claim was genuine and prayer be allowed.

 

OP1 / Yes Bank filed their evidences through Mr Zameeruddin Khan Authorised Representative stated that complainant had saving account with OP1 and statement account was on record (Ex OPW1/2). OP1 also relied on EJ log supplied by OP2 which showed as transaction successful. It was again submitted that CCTV footage were not available, but as per details supplied by OP2 pertaining to cash details in ATM were relied (Ex OPW1/3). OP1 also relied on the law laid down pertaining to ATM cash withdrawal from ATM of OP2. All submitted citations were justified role of OP1 and thus there was no deficiency in their services.  

OP2/OBC submitted evidences on affidavit through Mr Poonam Grover working as Senior Manager with OP2 and reaffirmed that RTI application received from complainant was timely replied though complainant had filed appeal also before Appellate Authority against the replies given by the Primary Information officer. It was also submitted that many correct facts were suppressed by complainant.

OP2 also submitted written arguments and stressed on the issue that complainant had no contract though replies of RTI were given as per the Act. So, taken on record.

 

Arguments were heard from the Ld. counsel of both the parties. After perusing material on record, order was reserved.

We perused the facts and evidences on record. After considering facts of OP1 which were based on the replies filed by OP2 pertaining to successful transaction and no excess cash was found in ATM of OP2 which was evident from Eg Log and reference of citations submitted by OP1, no deficiency could be made out. As far as OP2 is concerned, we have seen evidences submitted by OP2 and were on record, no deficiency in service was evident. More so complainant could not produce any evidence to establish deficiency in services of OP1 and 2. That being so the present complaint deserves dismissal so dismissed without any order to cost.  

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties under Section 18(6 ) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under the Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                                  

 

                                       

                                                        Sukhdev Singh President