THE BRANCH MANAGER Vs. TEJ SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant's grievance is against the order dated 15.03.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and respondents No.2 & 3 by respondent No.1, Tej Singh, has been allowed, only as against it and a direction given to it to make a credit entry of Rs.10,000/ -, in the account of respondent No.1, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of making credit entry and also to pay Rs.3,000/ -, as compensation and another sum of Rs.2,000/ -, as litigation expenses.

(2.) Respondent No.1, Tej Singh, had a savings bank account with respondent No.2. Facility of ATM Card was provided to him. Complainant alleged that on 03.02.2012, he wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/ - against the ATM Card issued to him, for which he went to the ATM Machine of the appellant at Nerchowk and tried to draw a sum of Rs.10,000/ -. He alleged that he inserted the ATM Card, but money did not come out. Soon -thereafter, he received message from State Bank of India, Nerchowk, i.e. respondent No.3 that an amount of Rs.10,000/ - was debited to his account because of operation of ATM Card. Immediately, respondent No.1 allegedly went to the appellant and complained that transaction having not been completed, debit entry in his account with respondent No.3 was not correct and that it should be got recovered. He alleged that the functionaries of the appellant did not listen to him and told him to lodge complaint with the bank, with which he had the savings bank account. He alleged that thereafter, he sent a written complaint dated 17.02.2012 to the State Bank of India, Nerchowk, i.e. respondent No.3, but he was told that transaction had completed, as per information received from the appellant. He, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the appellant and respondents No.2 & 3 to make credit entry of Rs.10,000/ -, in his account and also to compensate him and to pay litigation expenses.

(3.) Complaint was contested by the appellant as also respondents No.2 & 3. Respondent No.1 required the CCTV footage to be produced by the appellant, but the same was not produced and it was pleaded that CCTV footage automatically disappears, after lapse of three months and that a period of three months having lapsed, appellant was unable to produce the same. It was also pleaded that respondent No.1 had not asked for preserving the CCTV footage.