District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

B. S. Road, Cooch Behar -736101.

Ph. No. 03582-230696, 222023
E-mail - confo-kb-wb at the rate of nic.in
Web - www.confonet.nic.in

Complaint Case No. CC/43/2022

( Date of Filing : 30 Aug 2022 )

1. Mimi Barddhan,
W/o. Arunava Barddhan, Near South Khagrabari Club,
Shyama Prasad Palli, Ward No.1, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. &
Dist. Cooch Behar-736101. ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank,
Cooch Behar Branch, N.N. Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & Dist.
Cooch Behar-736101. ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN MEMBER

PRESENT:Sri Santosh Kr. Sah,, Advocate for the Complainant 1

Dated : 21 Feb 2023

Final Order / Judgement

Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.

Dispute relating to ATM transaction dragged the Complainant to file the present
case against the OP. The brief background of the case is that the Complainant Mimi
Bardhan is Consumer/Customer O.P. No.1 of HDFC Bank Cooch Behar Branch, N.N.
Road, P.O.-Cooch Behar having saving A/C No. 50100328707971 and ATM Card
No.438624360260. On 6.11.20 due to serious illness of the Complainant as per
permission of Complainant her husband pushed the ATM Card for withdrawing
Rs.20,000/- . But he did not receive any cash. On the contrary, the complainant
found that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deducted from the A/C of the Complainant.
Thereafter the husband of the Complainant informed it to the OP, HDFC Bank who
assured that the disputed amount would be credited to the account of the
Complainant. After lapse of some time it was not credited. So the complainant filed
a written Complaint to the OP through e-mail on 04.02.2021.The OP also received a
registered complaint on 12.05.22. But did not reply it. The husband of the
Complainant filed a complaint with the CA & FBP Department, Cooch Behar. Despite
receiving notice O.P. did not appear there. The Complainant claimed to the OP to
produce CCTV Footage and J.P. log but the OP did not produce it. Hence in the
present case the Cause of action arose on 06.11.20 and on subsequent dates till
05.08.22. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award for Rs.20,000/- for actual
deduction, Rs.80,000/- towards deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
Notice was served upon the OP. But the OP preferred not to contest the case.

From the document filed by the Complainant it is found that the notice was served
upon the OP on 12.05.22. Despite receiving the notice the OP did not contest the
case. So the case is heard ex-parte.

The Complainant in order to establish the case adduced oral evidence in the form of
evidence on affidavit. Both the complainant Mimi Bardhan and her husband
deposed as PW1 and PW2 respectively by filing evidence on affidavit.

It is important to consider that the ATM card actually stands in the name of the
Complainant namely Mimi Bardhan. But on the un-fateful day the said ATM card
bearing No 438624360260 was actually used by the husband of the Complainant,
namely Arunavo Bardhan on 06.11.20 at the N.N. Road ATM Kiosk .

Question may arise as to why the ATM card was given to another person which is
confidential and should not be handed over.

The OP preferred not to contest the case and as such no point of defence was made
out in this case. However, since the commission has the duty to check all the
documents before granting any relief to the litigant, so, after perusing the pleadings
and the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the Complaint handed over the
ATM card to her husband due to serious illness of the Complainant. The OP also did
not raise this point at any stage as to why the said card was used by other person. In
fact during exigency due to medical ground the complainant had urgent need of
money and as such her husband Arunavo Bardhan used the ATM card on behalf of
the Complainant.

It is the further case of the Complainant that despite pushing the ATM card by the
husband of the complainant, money did not come out but the OP deducted
Rs.20,000/- from the A/C of the Complainant. The Complainant adduced specific
evidence in this regard by filing evidence on affidavit as well as documents.

Annexure-2 is the copy of ATM card and Annexure1 discloses that a sum of
Rs.20,000/- was deducted from the A/C of the Complainant. All the one series
document supports the contention of the complainant.

The other documents like Complaint letter being Annexure-4, SMS Annexure-3
proceedings before CA Department being Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 being a
letter issued by the CA Department to the husband of the complainant also
corroborate the case of the Complainant.
The entire oral and Documentary evidence of the Complainant stands unchallenged
and un-discarded since the case is heard ex-parte.

Having assessed the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and in the
light of the discussion made herein above, the Commission comes to the finding the
case stands proved ex-parte.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds ex-parte.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the CC Case No. CC/43/2022 be and the same is allowed ex-Parte with cost of
Rs.5,000/-.

The Complainant Mimi Bardhan do get an award for Rs.20,000/- towards actual
money to be credited to her account, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. The O.Ps are
directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date
of passing the Final Order failing which the OP shall pay the interest @ 6 % per
annum from the date of passing the Final order till the date of realization.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post
forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website
www.confonet.nic.in.

DA to note in the Trial Register.

Dictated and corrected by me.

[HON'BLE MR. HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY]

PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL]

MEMBER

[HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN]

MEMBER