Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/597/2022

Raj Kumar Pathak - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/597/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.6.2022
Date of Decision	:	4/12 /2023

 

Raj Kumar Pathak S/o Mr. Ayodhya Pathak R/o #383, phase-2, Ramdarbar, Chandigarh U.T..

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1. State Bank of India Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh
2. Reserved Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh
3. OP No.3 already deleted vide order dated 10.2.2023.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Ms. Shalini Bagdi,, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	OP No.2 exparte.
	:	OP No.3 deleted vide order dated 10.2.2023.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  on the evening of 16.6.2019 at around 8.00 p.m. the complainant went to withdraw money from the nearby ATM at Ramdarbar thereafter when the complainant started using his ATM card in the machine, having ID BHNE061067100, the screen  of the ATM went off. The complainant tried to cancel the transaction but the key of the ATM did not work. Thereafter the complainant went to another ATM  installed in the same premises/roof  for   withdrawal of amount and  he withdrew Rs.5000/-  by using his ATM card, in the ATM having ID BHNE061067101. After about 5-10 minutes, the complainant received a message of withdrawal from his account i.e. the first message of Rs.5000/- and another message of Rs.10,000/- whereas the complainant had actually  received an amount of Rs.5000/-.  The complainant shocked to see the aforesaid message as he has only received Rs.5000/-  from the aforesaid ATM whereas an amount of Rs.10,000/-  has wrongly been shown withdrawn from his account. Accordingly, the complainant made call on 100 number  and the PCR came, to whom he reported the matter and they asked the complainant to come to police station 31 and take copy of DDR and they transferred the  matter to Cyber crime. On the very next date i.e. on 16.6.2019, the complainant made a complaint to Branch Manager  vide  Exhibit C-5 and asked him to provide the CCTV footage  of the subject ATM  but he refused to give the same by asking the complainant to pay an amount of  Rs.2500/-  for the said footage.  Thereafter the complainant visited the concerned branch but with no response.  Even  thereafter, the complainant approached the cyber cell and the concerned branch manager to supply him the CCTV footage but with no result. Accordingly the complainant was compelled to file the instant complaint as till date no money has been credited in his account by the bank. In January 14, 2020, the complainant sought information under RTI Act from the OPs and it was informed to the complainant that total 7 complaints have been registered during the year 2019.  As the OPs have not supplied the CCTV footage to the complainant till date and an amount of Rs.10,000/-   has wrongly been shown to be withdrawn, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1  resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, concealment of facts and cause of action. It is alleged that as per the case of the complainant he has received two messages of withdrawal of Rs.5000/- and Rs.10,000/- and as the complainant himself has not acknowledged the transaction before leaving the ATM the answering OP cannot be held responsible.  It is further alleged that in fact the Branch Manager and the team of the OP No.1 initiated requisite action and after  obtaining necessary internal approval, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant on 21.1.2020 and the copy of statement of amount is  Annexure OP-3 and as such the complainant has no cause of action after receiving the aforesaid amount in his account and has filed false and frivolous complaint. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. It is also alleged that in fact the RTI information has been properly been given to the complainant vide reply Annexure OP-4 dated 11.2.2020.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested
3. OP No.2  was properly served and when OP No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 21.12.2022.
4.  Opposite Party No.3 already deleted on the request of the complainant vide order dated 10.2.2023.
5. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP No.1.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant and contesting opposite party that  on the evening of 16.6.2019,  the complainant has used two ATMs in the same premises installed by the OP No.1 at Ramdarbar  and on the use of aforesaid ATM(s) by the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- and Rs.10,000/-  has been reflected as withdrawn from the account of the complainant whereas in actual the complainant received only Rs.5000/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs showing amount  of Rs.10,000/- wrongfully as withdrawn from the account of the complainant  and the complainant is entitled for the said amount from OP No.1 as is the case of the complainant or if the complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of OP No.1.
   2. Perusal of Exhibit C-1 clearly indicates that the complainant has reported the matter to the police  immediately after the aforesaid transactions and DDR was lodged at police station Sector 31,  Chandigarh. Exhibit C-2 is the messages received by the complainant showing that the complainant has used two ATMs on the relevant date and time, firstly at 8:13 P.M.  secondly at 8:14 p.m. Exhibit C-3 is the copy of statement of account which indicates that an amount of Rs.5,000/-  was withdrawn at first instance  on the relevant date and time whereas an amount of Rs.10,000/-  was further shown to have been withdrawn through ATM Switch CEN. Annexure C-5 is the copy of complaint lodged by the complainant with the Branch Manager, indicating the details of the transaction which has taken place on the relevant date,time and place. Annexure C-6  is the copy of complaint tracking system  slip issued by the Chandigarh Police.
   3. On the other hand OP No.1 proved on record Annexure OP-3 the copy of statement of account of the complainant which clearly indicates that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant on 21.1.2020 by the OP bank.  Annexure OP-4 is the copy of reply to the application filed by the complainant under RTI Act .
   4. As per the case of the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- was wrongly debited from his account despite of the fact that the said amount was not received by the complainant while using the ATM of the OP bank and the OP bank denied to provide CCTV footage to the complainant, and has not returned the amount of the complainant even as per instructions and therefore the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for.
   5. On the other hand the defence of OP No.1 is that in fact after obtaining necessary internal approval, an amount of Rs.10,000/-  was credited in the account of the complainant on 21.1.2020 which fact has also been communicated to the complainant and despite of that the complainant has filed the instant false complaint and thus the same is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable with heavy cost. There is force  in the defence of the OP No.1 as it stands proved on record that though an amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant on the relevant date and time while using ATM of the OP bank but the OP bank after verifying the facts and on obtaining  necessary internal approval from the competent authorities had already credited the aforesaid amount in the account of the complainant on 21.1.2020 as is also evident from  Annexure OP-3 and the complainant  despite of fully knowing this fact that the said amount has already been credited in his account on 21.1.2020, filed the present complainant after almost two and half years. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove cause of action set up in the complaint against the OPs and the same is liable to be dismissed especially when the complainant has concealed the material fact that he has received an amount of Rs.10,000/- in his account from OP No.1.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/12/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member