JUDGMENT P.S Rana, President - Present appeal is filed against order dated 20.04.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission in consumer complaint No.36/2016 titled Ranvijay Singh Versus Manager Canara Bank & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is a consumer of banking service of opposite party No.3 and is having his salary/saving bank account No.909010032748216 at Baddi branch of Axis Bank. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 has provided Debit Visa card No.4215-7290-0010- 6267 to complainant for withdrawal of money from any ATM machine of any bank in India. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 also provided SMS facility to registered mobile phone. It is further pleaded that on dated 26.02.2016 complainant visited DC Office Solan for official purpose and complainant was not having cash money in his pocket and thereafter complainant approached nearest ATM machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 for withdrawal of money to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand). 3. It is pleaded that ATM machine of Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 did not disburse money and also did not disburse transaction slips. It is pleaded that complainant received SMS from Axis Bank opposite party No.3 that money to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) was debited from saving bank account of complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant immediately approached Canara Bank. It is pleaded that official of Canara Bank told complainant to approach nearest Axis Bank Branch. It is further pleaded that complaint was also filed but complaint of complainant was not redressed. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to pay loss of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) occurred to complainant. In addition complainant sought relief of litigation costs and compensation amounting to Rs.25000/-(Twenty five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant conducted transaction from ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 near DC Office Solan and tried to withdraw Rs.2000/-(Two thousand). It is further pleaded that as per CCTV footage complainant was in a hurry and left ATM within twenty seconds and did not wait till completion of withdrawal transaction process. It is further pleaded that as per CCTV footage complainant was in a hurry and left ATM within twenty seconds and did not wait till completion of withdrawal transaction process. It is pleaded that another person came after gap of nine minutes found cash in ATM and took the cash. It is pleaded that transaction did not take place from ATM of opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 sought. 5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant tried to withdraw cash by using ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce near DC Office Solan (H.P) on dated 26.02.2016. It is pleaded that as per CCTV record complainant was in a hurry and complainant left ATM within twenty seconds after he entered PIN for cash withdrawal and complainant did not wait till completion of withdrawal transaction process from ATM. It is further pleaded that subsequent person who visited ATM after a gap of nine minutes found the cash in the machine which is also visible in CCTV footage and transaction slip and third person took cash amount to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand). It is pleaded that Oriental Bank of Commerce opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought against opposite party No.2. 6. Opposite party No.3 did not filed any version. 7. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission partly allowed consumer complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3 and dismissed consumer complaint against opposite party No.1. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission ordered opposite party No.3 to credit Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) in account of complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission further ordered that opposite party No.3 would recover amount from opposite party No.2 as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission further ordered opposite parties No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards mental harassment to complainant. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission complainant filed present appeal before State Commission for enhancement of amount. 8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondent No.2 and we have also perused entire record carefully. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission complainant filed present appeal before State Commission for enhancement of amount. 8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondent No.2 and we have also perused entire record carefully. None appeared on behalf of co-respondent No.1. Co-respondent No.3 was proceeded ex-parte by State Commission on 19.07.2017. None appeared on behalf of co-respondent No.3 despite service. 9. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 10. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant did not file any evidence relating to controversial facts as per section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as per corresponding section 38(9) of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant has given statement before Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission on dated 08.12.2016 that affidavit filed in support of consumer complaint alongwith documents annexures C1 to C10 be read as evidence on behalf of complainant and closed the evidence. 11. Shri Amar Singh Branch Manager Canara Bank filed evidence by way of affidavit Ext.OPW1-1. There is recital in affidavit that complainant conducted transaction of withdrawal from ATM of Oriental Bank of Commerce i.e. opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was in a hurry and left ATM within twenty seconds and did not wait till completion of withdrawal transaction procedure from ATM. There is recital in affidavit that after a gap of nine minutes another third person came in ATM and took the cash. It is denied that ATM has not disbursed transaction slip. It is admitted that complainant registered grievance online on the Canara Bank Portal. 12. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Shri Arun Sharma Branch Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was in hurry and left ATM within twenty seconds and did not wait till completion of withdrawal transaction process from ATM. There is further recital in affidavit that after a gap of nine minutes other third person came in ATM and took the cash from ATM. 13. Opposite party No.3 did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavits. Learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission proceeded ex-parte against opposite party No.3 on dated 22.02.2017. 14. There is further recital in affidavit that after a gap of nine minutes other third person came in ATM and took the cash from ATM. 13. Opposite party No.3 did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavits. Learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission proceeded ex-parte against opposite party No.3 on dated 22.02.2017. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission has not granted adequate compensation to complainant for mental harassment and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission has granted Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) to complainant for mental harassment. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable compensation has been granted by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission for mental harassment to complainant because Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission has directed opposite party No.3 to credit an amount of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) in the account of complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment in addition to compensation amount. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission has not granted litigation costs to complainant and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant has engaged Advocate before Learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission and complainant has also paid litigation costs. Complainant did not file Advocate fee receipt on record. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is legally entitled for reasonable litigation costs from opposite parties No.2 & 3. 16. None appeared on behalf of co-respondents No.1 & 3 at the time of final arguments before State Commission. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.2 that order of Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission does not warrant any interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission has not granted any litigation costs. State Commission is of the opinion that appellant is legally entitled for reasonable litigation costs because Consumer Protection Act was enacted by Parliament of India to protect interest of consumers strictly as per laws and proved facts. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.2 that complainant was in hurry and complainant did not wait for withdrawal procedure of money from ATM is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.2 that complainant was in hurry and complainant did not wait for withdrawal procedure of money from ATM is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). It is admitted by opposite parties that an amount of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) was debited from account of complainant and withdrawn cash amount was taken away by third person who came subsequently after complainant in ATM. Officials of Oriental Bank of Commerce The Mall Solan did not file any FIR against third person who took amount of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) in an illegal manner. Oriental Bank of Commerce also did not issue any notice to third person who has taken the money debited from the account of complainant in illegal manner when photo of third person was recorded in CCTV Camera installed near ATM to catch all activities conducted in ATM. Oriental Bank of Commerce also not placed on record enquiry report and also did not file affidavit of person who has conducted enquiry personally. Plea of co-respondent No.2 that third person took money from ATM is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 19. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. It is ordered that opposite parties No.2 i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce shall pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand). Order of Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission that opposite party No.3 would credit an amount of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment and thereafter opposite party No.3 would recover said amount from opposite party No.2 as per guidelines of RBI is affirmed. Order of Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission that opposite parties No.2 & 3 would pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards mental harassment is also affirmed. Order of Learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission is modified accordingly. 20. File of learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.