Delhi

New Delhi

CC/125/2015

Aditya Kishwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Deutsche Bank - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 125/2015                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:                        

Aditya Kishwar

120, Munirka Enclave,

New Delhi-110067                   

......COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

1.  Deutsche Bank

ECE House,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001.

 

2.  Bank of Baroda,

16, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001

     .....OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

H.M. VYAS – MEMBER

                                                            O R D E R

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant used the ATM of OP-2 for cash withdrawal from his saving account operative with OP-1. It is alleged that complainant on 03/03/2013 attempted to withdraw thrice out of which 2 transactions failed, however, no slip to show failed transactions was dispensed by the ATM. The third transaction was successful and the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for which too, no transaction slip was dispensed by the ATM machine. On returning to home the complainant checked through internet banking the fate of the transaction and was noticed that his saving account has been debited for each of the attempt to withdraw the money.

The complainant sent e-mail to OP-1 through internet banking and also to its call centre. The complainant was advised to take up the matter with the bank of Baroda i.e. OP-2 at whose ATM the transaction had taken place. On 08/03/2013 the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was credited to the complainant’s account against one failed transaction. On pursuing the matter with OP-1, the complainant was advised that as per records received from the OP-2 (Bank of Baroda) the two transactions  were successful as per their record and therefore, no credit of Rs. 10,000/- could be made to the complainant.

Disputing the contention of successful transaction of Rs. 10,000/-, the present complaint has been filed. It is also alleged that the OP-2 in response to the RTI application informed the complainant that CCTV footage was not available as the same preserved for 3 months only.

After notice, both the OPs filed their respective version /written statement.

The OP-1 in reply has stated that as per the system logs and confirmation received from OP-2 ( Bank of Baroda), transaction done on 03/03/2013 and one of the 2 transaction done on 04/03/2013 was successful. Only one transaction had failed on 04/03/2013 and the same was credited/reversed in the account of the complainant on 08/03/2013.

It is stated that as per the transaction statement/bank statement filed by the complainant himself show the transactions at serial no. 20,21,22. The format of the date is Month-Date-year. There were withdrawal from the OP-2 ATM on 04/03/2013 (written as 03-04-2013 i.e. Month-Date-Year). The withdrawal made on 03/03/2013 was also shown on 04 March only in the account of complainant.

The entry at serial number 15 shows that the credit of Rs. 10,000/- in the account of complainant from bank of Baroda(OP-2) stood  made. Stating that two attempted of withdrawal from ATM of OP-2 were successful and that as against one failed transaction of Rs. 10,000/-, credit was made in the account of the complainant by OP-2 on 08/03/2013.  All allegation made against the OP-1 have been categorically denied and prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made.

The OP-2 filed its reply denying all allegations. It is also stated that the no complaint regarding the transactions at its ATM at Munirka Village was made by the complainant. The OP-1 did not asked or demand any CCTV footage. It is also stated that the CCTV Footage was preserved only for 90 days from the date of transaction. Prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made.

All the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant and OP-1 also addressed their oral arguments.

We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions of the parties.

The facts emerging from the records and the submission of the parties are that the complainant admitted 3 transactions from the ATM of OP-2. The complainant alleged that out of the 3 transaction only one was successful and 2 transactions failed Credit of Rs. 10,000/- in respect  of 1 failed transaction had been received but credit of second failed transaction claimed has not been made of the OPs.

Per contra, the OPs stated that out of 3 transaction 2 were successful and in respect  of failed transaction the OP-2 had already credit the amount of 10,000/- and as such nothing survives in the complaint and the complaint deserves dismissal. The CCTV footings are not preserved after 90 days and are not available thereafter.

From the above, it is clear that disputed in question of facts exist which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings  by this Forum as has been held in catena of judgments. Therefore, in our consider view this Forum cannot adjudicate the disputed question of facts for when evaluation of the witnesses and other evidence is necessary. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach Civil Court if so advised.

Copy   of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  parties  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

Announced in open Forum on 31/10/2019.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

 

                                   (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                             PRESIDENT

                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                     (H M VYAS)

        MEMBER                                                                                     MEMBER