IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer complaint cannot be founded upon bare allegations.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member.—Brief facts of the case are that Nirmala Kumari/the original complainant/predecessor-in of the present petitioners (hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) being a diabetic patient was having difficulty in standing in a queue outside ATM machines and due this reason she regularly authorizes her son namely Sachin i.e. the petitioner No.1 to withdraw money from ATM. The complaint on 10.04.2017 at about 10:15 am instructed the petitioner No.1 to withdraw Rs.20,000 from the ATM machine installed at Panchayat Bhawan, Mini Secretariat, Kurukshetra by the respondent No.1 and at that time, the balance amount in the account of the complainant was Rs.3,50,114.75. The petitioner No.1 gave a command for withdrawal of Rs.20,000 but ATM dispensed only Rs.11,000 in cash and vide transaction number 7839 account of the complainant was debited for Rs.20,000. The petitioner No.1 took Mini Statement vide transaction No.7840 wherein the balance in the account was shown as Rs.3,30,114.75. The petitioners Nos.1 and 3 approached the respondent No.2 who referred them to a probationary officer. The probationary officer instructed the petitioner No.1 to lodge a complaint on toll-free number and accordingly, a complaint was registered on 10.04.2017 vide ticket number 3049153918. The complainant was advised to wait for seven days by the complaint centre official. The complainant waited for seven days and thereafter it was informed to her to approach the branch of the concerned bank directly. The complainant and the petitioner No. 1 met with the bank officials and submitted a fresh written complaint on 18.04.2017 vide ticket number 3062832747. The complainant was again asked to follow up after seven days. The petitioners Nos.1 and 3 visited the respondent no. 1 where the respondent No.2 contacted the Chief Cashier to verify the ATM balance on the date in question who acknowledged that there was indeed an excess amount in the ATM machine. The probationary officer intervened and refused to take any remedial action. The complainant filed various complaints with the respondents and higher authorities but no corrective measures have been taken demonstrating deficiency in service. The complainant being aggrieved the consumer complaint titled as Nirmala Kumari v. State Bank of India & Anr., bearing No. 132 of 2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) wherein prayed as under:

(a) To refund a sum of Rs.9,000 along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f.10.04.2017 till its actual realization;

(b) To pay a sum of Rs.100 per day w.e.f. 19.04.2017 till its actual realization;

(c) the respondents may further be directed to pay Rs.20,000 to the complainant on account of loss suffered, mental agony, physical pain, mental tension and deficiency in services along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suffering of loss till actual payment;

(d) the opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.11,000 as expenses for the preparation of the complaint and Counsel fee etc.,

(e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

2. The respondents filed their written statement before the District Forum. The respondents in preliminary objections stated that the complaint is not maintainable. The District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The complainant has not come with clean hands and has concealed true and material facts. The respondents on reply on merits stated that as per record, the transaction for withdrawal of Rs.20,000 was successful and no excess money was found in the ATM machine after investigation. The respondents also denied other allegations as stated in the complaint.

3. The complainant and the petitioner No.1 tender