State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Atm Icici Bank vs Kuldeep Singh on 13 March, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA First Appeal No.871 of 2016 Date of Institution:26.09.2016 Date of Decision: 13.03.2018 ATM ICICI Bank Circular Road, Bhiwani through Manager. .....Appellant Versus 1. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, R/o H.No.107 Park Colony, Bhiwani,Tehsil and District Bhiwani. 2. Oriental Bank of Commerce Sarsa Ghogra through its Manager Branch at BITS College, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani. .....Respondents CORAM: Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present:- Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent No.1 already ex parte. Mr.Samrat Ahuja, Advocate for the respondent No.2. O R D E R URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:
As per order dated 13.03.2018 contained in letter No.1047, I am conducting these proceedings singly.
ATM ICICI Bank Circular Road, Bhiwani- OP is in appeal against the Order dated 30.05.2016, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'District Forum'), Bhiwani, whereby the complaint of Kuldeep Singh has been allowed by directing the OP-2 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and Rs.2000/- by way of costs, for the non appearance of the manager despite direction issued by the District Forum.
3. Briefly stated, according to the Complainant, he was having an account bearing No.52432151002634 and that he has also been issued ATM card no.4357089011247537. He had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- on 03.11.2011 at 5.00 p.m. through the A.T.M. of OP no. 2 receiving cash from the A.T.M. The complainant received message for the withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from his account with OP no. 1. Immediately after the withdrawal of the said amount, soon thereafter, the complainant received another message regarding deducting of Rs. 10,000/- from his account even though the complainant had not withdrawn the second amount of Rs.10,000/- from the A.T.M. of OP no.2. The complainant due to this act and conduct of the opposite parties, had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
4. Opposite party no.1 pleaded that the matter with the Card Operation Centre of OBC at Secunderabad online and the system generated complaint no.73602/11 with regard to transaction no. 919 and no. 73605/11 with regard to transaction no.3297 on the same day i.e. 5.11.2011. The Card Operation Centre disclosed that there was no excess debit in the account of the complainant and in support thereof they also sent a copy of the J.P. Log Book. The OP no.1 also intimated the complainant vide letter dated 11.11.2011 that his both the complaint referred to above had been rejected. The complainant withdrew Rs. 20,000/- on 3.11.2011 vide two different transactions of Rs. 10,000/- each through ATM of ICICI Bank. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1.
5. OP No. 2 pleaded that the transactions made on the alleged date were successful as per their switch record. There had been several ATM transactions on the alleged date by many customers of the OPs and the transaction in question made by the complainant was also one of them. Therefore, the complainant was rightly informed about the debit of the amount in his account as stated by him as per the transaction made by him through ATM on 3.11.2011. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2. Despite all this, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by granting the aforesaid relief to the complainant against the OP-2 on 30.05.2016.
6. Against the impugned Order, the OP-2/appellant has come up in appeal before us by reiterating the same pleas, which were raised before the District Forum. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, from the perusal whereof, it is evident that the assertion made by the complainant stood fully substantiated. Even from the entries reflected in the J.P. Log (Annexure R-1/5) and J.P. Log Annexure R-1/9, it is clear that only one transaction had been made of Rs.10,000/- and the second transaction of the same amount was not corroborated from the ATM. In this situation, the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Consumer Forum that had there been two transactions of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on the same day and same time from the same ATM continuously that both these transactions should have been reflected in the J.P. Log Annexure R-1/5 and Annexure R-1/9. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the grievance of the complainant was justified and deserved to be fully redressed. Consequently, I uphold the detailed and well reasoned Order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
7. The statutory amount of Rs.6000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
March 13th, 2018 Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl. Bench S.K.