Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 1581
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana, Sunita Sharma, Members
Ranvijay Singh - Appellant
Versus
Manager Canara Bank Bank Branch Office - Respondent
First Appeal No. 156 of 2017
Decided On : 15-10-2019
Atul Sood, Advocate, Ranjeet Singh Thakur, Advocate
The court emphasized the concept of ipse dixit (an assertion made without proof) and the legal entitlement of the complainant to reasonable litigation costs under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act - [Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 38(9) of Consumer Protection Act 2019] - The court discussed the evidence presented by both parties, the concept of ipse dixit, and the compensation and litigation costs awarded by the District Consumer Forum/Commission. The court affirmed the order of the District Consumer Forum/Commission with modifications.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint against a bank for a failed ATM transaction, seeking compensation and relief for the loss incurred.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties, discussed the compensation and litigation costs awarded by the District Consumer Forum/Commission, and affirmed the order with modifications.
Issues: The determination of whether the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted and the final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the District Consumer Forum/Commission had granted reasonable compensation for mental harassment and affirmed the order with modifications, awarding litigation costs to the complainant and affirming the compensation and recovery of the amount from the bank as per RBI guidelines.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the order of the District Consumer Forum/Commission with modifications, and the court disposed of the appeal and pending applications.
JUDGMENT
P.S Rana, President - Present appeal is filed against order dated 20.04.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission in consumer complaint No.36/2016 titled Ranvijay Singh Versus Manager Canara Bank & Ors.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is a consumer of banking service of opposite party No.3 and is having his salary/saving bank account No.909010032748216 at Baddi branch of Axis Bank. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 has provided Debit Visa card No.4215-7290-0010- 6267 to complainant for withdrawal of money from any ATM machine of any bank in India. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 also provided SMS facility to registered mobile phone. It is further pleaded that on dated 26.02.2016 complainant visited DC Office Solan for official purpose and complainant was not having cash money in his pocket and thereafter complainant approached nearest ATM machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 for withdrawal of money to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand).
3. It is pleaded that ATM machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 did not disburse money and also did not disburse transaction slips. It is pleaded that complainant received SMS from Axis Bank opposite party No.3 that money to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) was debited from saving bank account of complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant immediately approached Canara Bank. It is pleaded that official of Canara Bank told complainant to approach nearest Axis Bank Branch. It is further pleaded that complaint was also filed but complaint of complainant was not redressed. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to pay loss of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) occurred to complainant. In addition complainant sought relief of litigation costs and compensation amounting to Rs.25000/-(Twenty five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant conducted transaction from ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 near DC Office Solan and tried to withdraw Rs.2000/-(Two thousand). It is further pleaded that as per CCTV footage complainant was in a hurry and left ATM within twenty seconds and did not wait till completion of withdrawal transaction process. It is pleaded that another person came after gap of nine minutes found cash in ATM and took the cash. It is pleaded that transaction did not take place from ATM of opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 sought.
5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant tried to withdraw cash by using ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce near DC Office Solan (H.P) on dated 26.02.2016. It is pleaded that as per CCTV record complainant was in a hurry and complainant left ATM within twenty seconds after he entered PIN for cash withdrawal and complainant did not wait till completion of withdrawal transaction process from ATM. It is further pleaded that subsequent person who visited ATM after a gap of nine minutes found the cash in the machine which is also visible in CCTV footage and transaction slip and third person took cash amount to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand). It is pleaded that Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought against opposite party No.2.
6. Opposite party No.3 did not filed any version.
7. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission partly allowed consumer complaint against oppo
