DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No.14 of 2014 Date of Institution13.01.2014 Date of Decision: 25.02.2016
Kamla Kant Kumar aged 27 years s/o Sh. Inder Kumar Bajpayee, presently residing at H.No.111-A, Gali No.4, Hans Enclave, Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
HDFC Bank Ltd, Branch Office at Sector 17, Gurgaon through its authorized signatory/person.
Punjab National Bank, Branch Office at Fountain Chowk, Gurgaon through its Authorized Person/Signatory.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.
SHRI SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER
Present: Shri Rajbir Tanwar, Adv for the complainant.
OP-1 exparte.
Shri Anil Yadav, Adv for the OP-2
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is operating a Bank A/c No. 17181140010945 with OP-1. On 15.12.2013 he did not withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his ATM Card No.5326760117100367 but the same has been shown as deducted from his account wrongly and illegally. He lodged a complaint with OP-1 vide complaint No.708706 but no action was taken. He visited the office of OP-1 and filled up Cardholder Dispute Form on 23.12.2013 but the amount has not been reverted back in his account. On the aforesaid allegations he filed the present complaint with the prayer of refund of Rs.10,000/- with interest besides seeking compensation of Rs.70,000/- as well as cost of litigation.
2 OP-1 failed to turn up before this Forum despite service and thus, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 19.03.2014.
3 The opposite party No.2 in their written reply has alleged that as per record of the opposite parties the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was successful. The complainant has admitted in his complaint to OP-1 that he was successful in withdrawing Rs.10,000/- from the said ATM Machine and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
5 After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on file and the arguments advanced by the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he did not withdraw the amount of Rs.10000/- from the ATM Machine of the OP though the same has been shown as deducted from his account wrongly and illegally whereas OPs have denied the above said allegation of the complainant and alleged that the above said transaction of Rs.10000/- was successful transaction and has produced the transaction record vide letter dated 19.12.2013 and 20.12.2013.
6 As per document available on file the complainant made two transactions and both the transaction of Rs.10,000/- each were successful. Therefore, as per transaction record the above said transaction has been shown as successful. There is nothing on the file on behalf of the complainant to rebut the above said document.
7 Hon,ble State Commission in the Appeal No.227 of 2013 decided on 23.5.2013 titled Bank of India Versus Ashok Kumar has held as below:
“Even otherwise, the ATM card remains with the possession of the complainant along with its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number.”
Same view has been taken by the Hon,ble National Commission in case State Bank of India Vs.K.K.Bhalla in Revision Petition no. 3182 of 2008 (2011(2) RCR 292 (NC).
Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , U.T.Chandigarh in case Shri Sarabjit Singh Lahri Versus PNB and another, 2003(1) CPC page 425.
Reliance has also been placed on the case laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case State Bank of India Vs Om Prakash Saini, 2013 (2) CPC, 149.
8. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the above referred authority and in view of the fact that Pin code is a secret and the ATM is also a very personal document of the customer and without using the secret pin code and the ATM card, the transaction cannot be completed. Therefore, as per transaction record which has reflected the transaction successful, it has to be held that the transaction was completed.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on the file in order to infer that on the particular date the particular machine was not functioning properly. There is no other complaint regarding irregular functioning of the said ATM machine. Therefore, when the document has shown the transaction successful then in the absence of any contrary evidence on the file, it could not be assumed that the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and as such we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.
9. Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
25.02.2016 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
