Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/564/2014

Gurmeet kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kamal K. Sharma Adv.

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	564 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	04.11.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	05.06.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Gurmeet Kaur wife of Sh.Karnail Singh, r/o H.No.3267, Chandigarh Police Housing Society, Sector 52, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, SCF 32, Phase-10, Mohali.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Sh.Gurmukh Singh, Counsel for the complainant.

None for Opposite Party

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party on the day of arguments i.e. 19.05.2015, we therefore, proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the Opposite Party.

 

2]        The case of the complainant is that she is having Saving Bank Account No.33652589497 with Opposite Party Bank, against which an ATM has also been issued (Ann.C-1). That on 23.5.2014, daughter of the complainant made a transaction through ATM in Sector 44 Market, Chandigarh to withdraw Rs.40,000/- in single transaction, but the ATM machine only dispensed a sum of Rs.15,000/-, whereas the account is debited with Rs.40,000/- as per entry in the passbook (Ann.C-2). The complainant lodged a complaint on helpline number of the Opposite Party, but still the refund of Rs.25,000/- was not made.  The complainant also made written request to the Opposite Party for refund of Rs.25,000/-, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party filed the reply and admitted the complainant’s having saving account with it and issuance of ATM card against it.  However, the Opposite Party has denied that dispensing of the less amount of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. It is submitted that admittedly the card in question has been used successfully by the daughter of the complainant in terms of JP Logs carrying the details of its usages.  It is also submitted that the records of the ATM shows the withdrawal and there found no excess amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of replenishment of cash in ATM, which proved that the transaction was successful. It is pleaded that after verifying the EG Log and ATM replenishment-cum-cash verification record, the report was sent to respondent No.1 for onward supply to the applicant with true and factual position of the transaction that the transaction was successful and no excess cash of Rs.25,000/- was found.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant, who is a bona-fide account holder of the opposite party, has alleged that on 23.5.2014 on her instructions, her daughter had operated the ATM Machine of the Opposite Party at Sector 44, Chandigarh, wanting to withdraw Rs.40,000/- in single transaction, but the ATM machine only dispensed a sum of Rs.15,000/-.  However, the debit entry showed the deduction of Rs.40,000/-, which was in excess to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, which was not dispensed by the machine.  The complainant claims to have lodged a complaint on the helpline number of Opposite Party immediately on the same day and was even given the complaint number by one Mr.Brijeshwar Singh. The complainant thereafter again wrote a letter dated 27.6.2014 and also moved an undated application under Right to Information Act as Ann.C-3 & C-4, but the Opposite Party failed to respond to these queries giving rise to the present complaint.  The complainant has sought the quoted relief claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

6]       The Opposite Party while defending itself by filing its version/reply has contested the claim of the complainant claiming that the Opposite Party had thoroughly checked the matter at its end and did not find any fault either in the dispensing of the amount of Rs.40,000/- as after going through the details of cash dispensed by the particular ATM machine, there was no mis-match in the number of transactions or the amount dispensed by the particular ATM machine.  Therefore, the bank has held that there was no deficiency in service on its part and for this reason, the complaint must fail qua it. 

 

7]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the complainant Ann.C-3 & C-4, which clearly proves that the complainant had raised the matter of having received lesser amount of Rs.25,000/- than the debit entry for a particular transaction conducted 23.5.2014 by her daughter.  The complainant had also demanded some other details from the Opposite Party through an application under Right to Information Act (Ann.C-4), but the Opposite Party neither gave any written reply to complainants request (Ann.C-3) nor there is any proof of supply of information, sought by her under RTI.  The pleadings of the Opposite Party though mentioned that it had compared the details of cash dispensed by the concerned ATM machine and that no discrepancy was found to substantiate the claim of the complainant.  The reply of the Opposite Party is not supported with an affidavit of authorised signatory nor there is any documentary evidence found attached with it for us to believe the pleadings of the Opposite Party.

 

8]       The Opposite Party was duty bound to respond to the letter dated 23.5.2014 (Ann.C-3) as well as Ann.C-4 i.e. the application under RTI.  In the absence of any reply to the RTI application of the complainant, the complainant certainly has the remedy available to her under the said Act, but as the Opposite Party has not placed on record any information from its customer for us to believe that it had acted in a due-diligent manner, while investigating the  complaint of the complainant and also the findings of such investigation even though it failed to supply the same to the complainant, but while contesting the present complaint, Opposite Party was duty bound to place on record all such details from the basis of which, the pleadings of its version sound hollow.  It is necessary to mention here that the Question No.2 of the RTI Application specifically demands information about the bank policy of maximum amount which can be withdrawn through a single transaction by ATM-cum-Debit Card Holder. We feel that this piece of information is of utmost importance for the reason that in the normal course of ATM transaction, there is a cap of Rs.10,000/- that can be withdrawn in single transaction and furthermore, it is also the entitlement of a particular card holder about the maximum limit of amount that he or she can withdraw in one sing truncation through ATM Card i.e. it may be Rs.15,000/- or Rs.25,000/- as per the qualification mandated by the Bank itself. The Opposite Party by not having replied to this query has certainly suppressed a material information, which could have easily satisfied the complainant and also the same would have been of great help to this Forum, so as to decide the case of the complainant on true merits. 

 

9]       The Opposite Party at the first instance failed to investigate the case of the complainant and inform her of the findings of such investigation, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  Furthermore, in the absence of any cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence from the side of the Opposite Party, the pleadings of its version cannot be believed.  The Opposite Party even failed to file a detailed affidavit in support of its pleadings.  Therefore, all the averments of the complaint go unrebutted and the present complaint deserves to succeed qua the Opposite Party.

   

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and also having indulged into unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

[a] The Opposite Party is directed to credit Rs.25,000/- in the account of the complainant and pay interest thereon @9% p.a. from the date of its debit i.e. 23.5.2014 till the date of credit;

 

[b] The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment and agony;

 

[c] The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% instead of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.25000/- from the date of debit i.e. 23.5.2014 till it is credited and also on the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

05.06.2015                   

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                      

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.564 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 5th day of June, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member