Ahmedabad: Gundressal Commission of Gujarat State Consumer Dispute has ordered Axis Bank to pay Rs 1.66 lakh with a 7% interest for Vinodbhai Joshi after the ATM card was mistakenly sent to Joshi’s separate wife and the amount was withdrawn from his bank account with the card.
According to the case detail, Joshi, a resident of Nardipur near the city of Kalol, has an account along with his son at Axis Bank.
Debit card is being used by a father-child duo.
After he lost the card, Joshi asked the bank in September 2009 to send a new card, which he had never received.
A year later on August 26, 2010, when Joshi went to the bank to attract Rs 10,000 through self-examination, he was told about insufficient balance.
After checking the bank’s report, Joshi came to the conclusion that the ATM card he had commanded had been sent to his separate wife address in Gandhinagar by the Bank’s authority.
Then, total RS 1,66,900 was withdrawn from the account.
Joshi sued the bank in the Redressal Forum for Consumer Disputes in Gandhinagar in 2010.
Services found deficientvinodbhai Joshi was looking for a refund that was lost, accused the deficiency in the bank section.
He argued that he had told the bank about the family suits filed for judicial separation between him and his wife in 2005.
He also completed his speech, but the bank sent it to his wife’s address and he thought it would withdraw his money.
In return, the bank authority claimed that the debit card was sent to Joshi alone and withdrawing the number made by Joshi and his son, which was proven by CCTV recordings as well.
However, the bank has never provided evidence before the Consumer Court.
On the other hand, evidence revealed that the debit card was sent to Joshi’s wife in Gandhinagar and not to Joshi in Nardipur.
Bank claims that PIN sent to Joshi also cannot be proven.
The documents reflect that the PIN was not accepted by Joshi, but was sent to his wife’s address through courier services and their son accepted it on October 1, 2009.
After hearing this case, the forum in 2011 was responsible for his mistakes.
And ordered it to pay the number to Joshi.
The bank questioned the decision before the State Commission, where his justice member M Mehta enforced the conclusion of the forum and held the bank responsible for the lack of service.
The Commission has ordered it to make interest payments since 2010 to consumers.