DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, Howrah – 711 101.

Complaint Case No. CC/13/260
Ajit Kumar Sahu Vs. Axis Bank, Kolkata and Union Bank of India, Kolkata

Dt.21-03-2014

The complainant is a salary account holder having an ATM Card with o.p. no. 1 ( herein Axis Bank Ltd., Dalhousie Square Branch, Kolkata ), having ATM being no. 5xxxxxxxxxxxxxx9 made an attempt into the ATM of Union Bank of India at the Howrah Railway Station ( Old Complex ) on 03-06-2013 at approx 10.56 hours for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- but only Rs. 500/- was received by the complainant. The rest of Rs. 9,500/- remain detained inside the ATM machine. Surprisingly the transaction was shown ‘successful transaction’ in the ATM receipt. The complainant ran from pillar to post on making complaints for recovery of the rest amount of Rs. 9,500/-. But no fruitful result was yielded. Being at a loss and having finding no tangible result the complainant filed this petition before this Forum praying for relief and compensation. Hence the case.

3. The o.p. no. 1, Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Dalhousie Square Branch, Kolkata _ 1, vide their written version denied the material allegations and contended interalia that as per documentary evidence clearly revealed and established beyond any pale of doubt that there has been “successful transaction” on ATM Card on the date / time specified in the petition of the complainant and that to it is to be stated that the electronic journal ( EJ ) filed also revealed that the complainant had done through the transaction no. 6374 and the said transaction was successful and Rs. 10,000/- was dispensed to the complainant. It is also opined by the answering o.p. that the EJ filed in the ATM is the final proof of authenticity of the transaction accepted across the world by the all banks and that to these ATM machines are supported the highest technology and excellent surveillance for which the ATM transaction against this instant case had been successfully carried out and cash has been successfully withdrawn and records clearly proved that the amounts in question were dispensed by the ATM machine. This answering o.ps. have also stated that the complaint made by the complainant is a frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. The o.p. no. 2 Union Bank of India vide their written version denied all the allegations as stated in the complaint as made by the complainant. This answering o.p. also opined that the ATM machine where transaction were made by the complainant on the schedule date and time was shown successful as per record of the transaction and as such question of non withdrawn of the desired amount does not arise. This answering o.p. further stated that they are neither liable in any manner whatsoever in the matter of impugned transaction nor the petition was subjected to harassment or humiliation or ill treatment from the side of this answering o.p. to the complainant against which it is humbly prayed for rejection this particular complaint.

5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant is a ATM card holder in the first customer advice reflects that the complainant made an attempt for withdrawal Rs. 10,000/- through ATM of o.p. no. 2 but on the contrary he received only Rs. 500/- against his demand of Rs. 10,000/-k. The transaction as shown in the ATM receipt was successful one and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- was deducted. The complainant was very much surprised to see from the ATM receipt how Rs. 9,500/- can vanish from his account when he did not receive the same amount in the schedule date and time of the ATM operation. The o.p. no. 1 cannot have any proper explanation for such ghost disappearance for the money. The conduct of the o.p. no. 1 to shave the entire dispute under the carpet on the fragile plea of further investigation is not at all convincing.

7. In our considered opinion that the o.p. no. 1 cannot shift its responsibility as they are the custodian of the savings account of the complainant and he is to be held responsible for the momentary loss of the complainant. If the customers lack faith upon the custodian and service provider for their recalcitrant attitude, the people are to suffer in the long run. The complainant left no stone unturned for getting redress and ran from pillar to post for replenishment of his hard-earned money.

8. In our estimation it is the o.p. no. 1 ( Axis Bank, Dalhousi Square Branch ) who is held responsible for the ultimate loss of the complainant. The o.p. no. 1 has no respite from the rigours of law.

In the result, the complaint success.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the C. C. Case No. 260 of 2013 ( HDF 260 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.ps.

The O.P. no. 1 do pay a sum of Rs. 9,500/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 03-06-2013 as a full and final settlement.

The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for prolonged mental pain and agony and a litigation costs of Rs. 2,000/- from the o.p. no. 1.

The O.P. no. 1 do pay decreetal dues within 30 days from the date of this order failing the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p. a. till full satisfaction.

The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.