Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/202

Sukhraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay goyal Adv.

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

              

                                                                                                 C.C. NO: 202/25.3.2015

                                                                                                 Decided on : 08.12.2015

 

 

Sukhraj Singh son of Shri Harnek Singh, Shree Atam Vallabh Jain College, Hussainpura, District Ludhiana.

                                                                                                       … Complainant

                                                 Versus

Allahabad Bank, Circular Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                        … Opposite Party

            Complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            Quorum: Sh. G.K. Dhir, President,

                             Sh. S.P. Garg, Member.

 

            Present: Sh. Ajay Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

                            Sh. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:

 

(Per G.K. Dhir, President)

 

1. Complainant,  filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by claiming that he is having Savings Bank A/c No. 2084445216-4 with the OP. Even  complainant is holding ATM card in this account.  Complainant went for withdrawing Rs. 1,000/- through ATM on 16.10.2013, but no cash amount was disbursed by ATM machine. Again, complainant entered the amount of Rs. 3,000/- in ATM machine on 16.10.2013, but no cash amount was disbursed. Despite that the amounts of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- were shown as debited in the account of the complainant. However, complainant approached the OP several times either for the reversal of the entries or to pay him amount of Rs. 4,000/-, but the OP failed to do the needful.  Complainant claims himself to be living in penury. Legal notice dated 9.1.2015 was got served by complainant through counsel, but despite that amount not disbursed back and that is why this complaint is for reimbursement of Rs. 4,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and for claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/- .
2. Opposite Party filed written statement by claiming that complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has no cause of action and complaint is filed without any basis. It is claimed that complainant successfully withdrew the amounts of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 3000/- through ATM transactions  dated 16.10.2013. OP bank enquired into the matter on the request of complainant and found the ATM transactions in question successfully completed. Due to success of the ATM transactions, the amounts were duly debited in the bank account of the complainant. Entries in this respect reflected in the statement of account of the complainant.  Had the complainant been aggrieved from ATM transactions, he would have approached the bank on the same day or on the next day or within one week, but complainant approached the OP bank after more than three months.  Even then, the bank enquired into the matter after receiving complaint and found the transactions successfully completed. Dena Bank situated at Mata Rani Chowk, GOP Road, Ludhiana certified that no excess cash was found in ATM (DEBA0248) while loading cash on 17.10.2013 .  Enquiry was conducted regarding transactions ID 504454992343 dated 16.10.2013 at 04.40.32 PM. The amounts in question were withdrawn through ATM Card No. 5085402306002952. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8  and then closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Narender Singh Parmar, Senior Manager of the OP bank along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and  Ex.R2/1  , Ex. R4/1 and then closed the evidence.
5. Written arguments submitted by OP, but not by complainant. Oral arguments addressed by learned counsel for both the parties were heard and records carefully gone through.
6. Provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure not applicable to consumer complaint and as such, submission of learned counsel for the OP that complaint liable to be rejected under that provision  has no force. From the pleadings and the produced documents by the parties, it is made out that actually complainant carried out two transactions for withdrawal of amounts of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 3000/- on 16.10.2013. Even if, name of the bank where  these transactions were conducted not disclosed by complainant any-where in his complaint, but despite that in the order of Ombudsman Ex. R2 dated 12.8.2014, it is mentioned that these transactions were carried out through ATM at Dena Bank and HDFC. The transactions conducted on 16.10.2013 for withdrawal of the amounts through ATM  remained successful, is a fact found by Ombudsman after enquiry through report Ex. R2. If at all the transactions would have remained unsuccessful, then complainant would have got the receipt from ATM machine qua mis-conduct of the transactions. Such receipt by complainant neither claimed to be collected nor produced. No mention made  in the complaint or in the evidence of complainant as to why such receipt from ATM was not collected.
7. Complainant claims to have approached the opposite party several times for reversal back of the entries of debited amounts  of Rs. 4000/- through ATM transactions, referred above, but dates on which complainant approached the OP not mentioned in the complaint or in the submitted affidavit or in any other produced document. So, allegation in this respect remains vague. It is the case of the OP that complainant approached them three months after the disputed transactions. Though, it is contended by counsel for the complainant that an application was filed with OP bank on 18.10.2013 for complaining of the unsuccessful transactions of ATM on 16.10.2013, but copy of that application has not been produced on record. If really, application in writing would have been submitted by complainant with OP bank, then copy of the same would have been retained by complainant in proof of approaching the OP at the earliest. As that application or copy thereof not produced and as such, the contents of affidavit Ex. RA are believable that complainant approached the bank after more than three months of the disputed transactions. In view of the failure of the complainant to approach the bank at the earliest qua failed ATM transactions, it is obvious that complainant himself remained at fault in not providing assistance to the bank at the earliest. Record of CCTV footage often is kept by the bank for three month and had the complainant approached the OP bank within three months, then he could  have properly assisted the bank. That assistance not rendered by complainant and as such, for fault of the complainant in not reporting the matter at the earliest, the OP cannot be held to be deficient in service. Ex. C1 is the copy of statement of account of complainant showing withdrawal of amounts of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 3000/- by him through ATM transactions on 16.10.2013. Due debit in that respect incorporated in Ex. C1 and as such, complainant got knowledge of the success of the transactions through these entries.
8. Ex. C2 is the registered notice got sent by complainant through counsel on 9.1.2015 and postal receipt Ex. C3 in that respect has been produced. Ex. C3 shows date of dispatch of the notice as 04.02.2015, but notice Ex. C2 is dated 9.1.2015. So, Even legal notice got served through the Postal Department after 25 days of its preparation from the counsel. Ex. C4 = Ex. R2 is the document showing that Ombudsman after enquiry found the ATM transactions to be conducted successfully. Even report of Ombudsman gets support from Certificate Ex. R3 issued by Dena Bank.  Through Ex. R3, it has been certified by Dena Bank that no excess cash found in ATM (DEBA0248) while loading cash on 17.10.2013. ATM transaction on 16.10.2013 at 04.40.32 PM for amount of Rs. 1.000.00 was successfully conducted and that is why excess cash was not found in the ATM by Dena Bank on next date of the withdrawal of 16.10.2013. Even if this certificate Ex. R3 bears date as  20.11.2013, but despite that it certifies a fact regarding not finding of any excess cash in ATM on 17.10.2013. So, this certificate Ex. R3 rules out the possibility of non-success of the ATM transaction qua amount of Rs. 1000/- .
9. Even if, complainant has not mentioned the location of the ATM through which the transactions conducted, but the OP has got produced on record Ex. R3 and Ex. R4 for showing that the amounts of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 3000/- were successfully withdrawn by complainant from his Savings Bank Account through ATM transactions. Record of ATM transactions of HDFC Bank – Ex. R4/1 has also been produced to show as to how many currency notes in denomination of Rs. 1000/- and as to how many currency notes in denomination of Rs. 500/- were disbursed through the transactions conducted through ATM. Even copy of statement of account of complainant Ex. R5 shows due debiting of amounts of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 3000/- withdrawn by him through ATM transactions on 16.10.2013 and as such, the entire record produced by the OP shows that on application Ex. R1 dated 15.6.2014 filed by the complainant with OP, due enquiry was got conducted through Ombudsman and application dated 15.10.2014 is filed after one year for getting documents from the bank and as such, complainant himself did not remain prompt in seeking documents at the earliest. There was no need for Dena Bank or HDFC  to issue notice to complainant at the time of checking of the cash in the concerned ATMs on 17.10.2013, because complainant himself did not report the matter to OP bank or to HDFC or Dena Bank at the earliest. As unloading of the cash in ATM machines to be done on daily basis and as such, it was for complainant to approach the concerned banks within 24 hours, but he failed to do so and that is why on inquiry duly conducted by bank, claim of complainant qua non-disbursal of the amount through ATM transactions in question was repudiated rightly. So, no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party is there.   
10.  As a sequel to the above discussion, complaint merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.

 

 

                              (S.P. Garg )                                                           ( G.K. Dhir ) 

                                      Member                                                               President