BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (V)
(North West District)
CSC-Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.
Case No. 1387/2010
Smt.Sunita Sharma
W/o Sh. Dinesh Sharma
R/o House No.34,
Pocket H-2, Sector – 11,
Rohini, Delhi – 85.
……….Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India,
Through its Branch Manager,
Sector – 11, Rohini,
Delhi – 110085.
2. Kotak Mahendra Bank,
Through its Manager
New Delhi Zonal Office,
32, Rajendra Bhawan,
Rajendra Place,
New Delhi – 110008.
……….Respondents/OPs
Coram: SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
SHRI S. C. JAIN, MEMBER
DR.PREM LATA, MEMBER
ORDER
DR. PREM LATA, MEMBER
Complainant in the present case is a customer of State Bank of India OP1 bearing account no.10659124751 and also holds debit card bearing no.6220180170800059801 of the debit card provides the facility to complainant to withdraw cash amount from any of ATM of the bank in alliance with OP on charging annual fee as per their terms. OP2 is a bank in alliance with OP1 for this purpose. While using the debit card of complainant and giving command for withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-, ATM of OP2 was given two commands for Rs.10,000/- each, ATM disbursed only Rs.1000/- but Rs.20,000/- was deducted from her account. The matter was taken up with OP1 who just completed the formality of forwarding complaint to OP2 who sent the statement slip to OP1 denying any error in the transaction. The case was closed by OP1 on this report only, It is therefore stated by the complainant that malfunctioning of ATM of OP2 is due to poor maintenance of the bank causing loss to customer OP2 is an acting agent for OP1 having alliance between them for providing services. Hence, OP1 & OP2 both are equally liable for the loss incurred by complainant. Complainant had also made a complaint with SHO Naraina requesting for providing CVC footage and also made complainant banking Ombudsman for video footage of the transaction in question at the ATM of OP2. Since no relief has been given to complainant by any agency, hence the complaint before this forum.
OP1 appeared through branch manager after receiving the notice. OP2 did not appear inspite of notices twice. Both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte. Later on complainant filed all relevant documents with copy of complaint to SHO & banking Ombudsman and also copy of legal notice sent to both the OPs. Her bank statement and report about transaction by OP2 is also placed on record. All the documents reveal that OPs have denied her claim only on the basis of transaction report of ATM of OP2 without going into the fact as to whether ATM was functioning accurately at the time of transaction. No fitness report has been produced, neither CTV footage has been provided to complaint. Statement of complainant shows deduction of Rs.20,000/- against the transaction in question. It is clear from the fact and circumstances of the case that none has gone into the details or had carried out any inspection of the equipment installed for the purpose of giving proper service to customers. OP1 has just refused to show any responsibility once their alliances has given one page report.
We therefore, find both the OPs deficient in services and hold their liable to refund the deficient amount of Rs.19,000/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
The above orders shall be complied with within 30 days failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment. If OP fails to comply with the above orders, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum under Section 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law and Case File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on…………………….
(PREM LATA) (S. C. JAIN) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT