Date of filing :15.10.2019 Date of order :26.06.2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1512 OF 2019 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 143 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : LATUR

1. Bank of India, …APPELLANT Ahmedpur, (Adv.D.Y.Nandedkar)

Through its Chief/Branch Manager, Branch at Thodga Road, Ahmadpur, Tq.Ahmadpur, Dist.Latur.

2. Chief/Branch Manager, Bank of India Corporate Office, Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai 400051.

VERSUS

1. Ashok Nagorao Halse, …RESPONDENT 1 At Post Ahmadpur, Tq.Ahmadpur (Adv.A.K.Jawalkar )

Dist.Latur.

2. Reserve Bank of India At Mumbai. …RESPONDENT 2 Human Research Section, Exparte Relating to Industrial and Discipline Chamber, Main Building, Bhagatsing Marg, Post Box No.901, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T Per Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

The Appellant has challenged in this appeal, the legality and correctness of the Judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Commission, Latur (in short, the District Commission) in C.C.No.143/2017, wherein the present appellant no.1 (in short, appellant bank) is original opponent no.1, appellant no.2 is opponent no.2 and the respondent no.1 is original complainant and respondent no.2 is opponent no.3.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-

Respondent no.1 is a consumer of appellant bank having his saving account no. 076416310000257. The appellant bank had provided him ATM card no.4598459007920372. On 22.02.2017 respondent no.1 visited the ATM of appellant bank to withdraw an amount of Rs. 20,000/-.Respondent no.1 followed the procedure to withdraw an amount by using the ATM card twice, but he has neither received the amount nor the receipt from the ATM. Thereafter on verifying the passbook respondent no.1 came to know that, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was debited from his account. Respondent no.1 made oral complaint to appellant bank on the same day and written complaint on next day. Appellant bank informed to respondent no.1 that, the disputed amount will be refunded in his account within four days but the amount was not refunded. Time to time Respondent no.1 requested appellant bank to refund the amount and provide the CCTV footage of working hours of ATM on 22.02.2017, but despite of legal notice issued by respondent no.1, appellant bank did not complied. As such due to deficiency in service on the part of appellant bank, respondent no.1 have filed this consumer complaint seeking various reliefs. Respondent no.1 filed relevant documents in support of his complaint.

3. Appellants were appeared before the District Commission and filed written statement, thereby resisted the complaint and denies the allegations. It was submitted that, Appellant bank made persuasion with concern ATM authority in respect of the disputed transaction and given all details to respondent no.1. The details given to respondent no.1 shows that, the amount of Rs. 20,000/-was withdrawn but has not picked up by him. Also the reports show that, no excess amount was found in the ATM which means that the transaction is successful. Appellant bank has sent mail to concern ATM Company regarding the CCTV footage but it was replied by them that, the CCTV footage is available only for the period of 90 days but the period was laps therefore company cannot make available it. Appellants prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in service committed by them. Appellant bank filed relevant documents in support of their defense.

4. On hearing the counsel of both parties and considering the evidence on record, Ld District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed both the appellant to pay jointly and severely to respondent no.1, Rs. 20,000/- along with Rs 100/- per day from 22.02.2017 within 30 days from the date of order else liable to pay 9 % interest from 24.