SboP to pay Rs 10,000 compensation
For failing to take immediate action to secure correct CCTV footage of a disputed transaction, district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, directed State Bank of Patiala (SboP) to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to a Sector 49 resident.chandigarh Updated: Dec 25, 2014 10:32 IST
For failing to take immediate action to secure correct CCTV footage of a disputed transaction, district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, directed State Bank of Patiala (SboP) to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to a Sector 49 resident.
Dalbir Singh, a resident of Sector 49, Chandigarh, had moved the consumer forum against the State Bank of Patiala. Dalbir, who has a savings bank with the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 46 C branch, Chandigarh, said he withdrew an amount of Rs 4,000 from the ATM of the State Bank of India installed in Sector 47 D, Chandigarh, on April 9 last year.
On a visit to the SboP for getting his passbook entries completed, Dalbir got to know that a third person had withdrawn Rs 20,000 from his account on April 9, 2013. The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of the bank, police and other authorities.
The complainant even went to the branch office of the State Bank of India, which deals with CCTV footage for the redressal of his grievance, but the official sitting there "refused to entertain his request".
Finally the complainant was shown the CCTV footage by the bank, but it was totally unclear and reflected the poor quality of cameras installed by the bank. Thus, amounted to unfair trade practice.
The State Bank of Patiala had taken a number of preliminary objections, including that the complainant had already lodged a complaint with the SSP, Chandigarh, and also got a DDR recorded.
Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. Pleading that there was no deficiency in the service or unfair trade practice on its part, the bank had made a prayer for dismissal of the complaint.
The consumer forum presided over by PL Ahuja on December 19 held that, "The action of the State Bank of Patiala in not procuring the correct CCTV footage of the disputed transaction points out towards the negligence on the part of the officials of the State Bank of Patiala and the same amounts to deficiency in service on its part on account of which the complainant had to suffer."
The bank clarified that the SboP is found deficient in service only to this extent that it did not take immediate action to secure the correct CCTV footage of the disputed transaction.