Haryana

StateCommission

A/315/2017

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARJUN RAM - Opp.Party(s)

BHUSHAN BHATIA

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    315 of 2017

Date of Institution:    17.03.2017

Date of Decision :     28.03.2018

 

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and having its branches at different places including one at Hisar, main branch, Sirsa Road, Hisar, Haryana through its Constituted Attorney/Senior Manager Ishwar Singh Saroha.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Arjun Ram s/o Sh. Wadhwa Ram, C/o D.F.O. (T), Mill Gate, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      State Bank of India, Main Branch, Near Camp Chowk, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Chief Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri S.K. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondent No.2 ex parte. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated January 16^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Arjun Ram-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) is having saving bank account No.10311441360 in State Bank of India, main branch, Delhi Road, Hisar-Opposite Party No.1 with facility of  Automated Teller Machine (for short ‘ATM’) and a card of ATM was provided to him.          On March 05^th, 2013  the complainant was in urgent need of money, so he inserted his ATM card and entered his pin number in the ATM installed by Punjab National Bank-Opposite Party No.2  near Jain Mandir, Jahajpulpur, Hisar, for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.9,000/-. Unfortunately, the ATM of the opposite party No.2 neither discharged any amount for collection by the complainant nor the printed slip showing balance in his account.  Thereafter, the complainant rushed to another ATM of the opposite party No.2 installed in Rajguru Market, Hisar.  The complainant inserted his ATM card entering his pin number and an amount of Rs.9,000/-. An amount of Rs.9,000/- was discharged but in the printed slip payable amount withdrawal was mentioned as 19,000/- from the account of the complainant. It is clear that an excess amount of Rs.9,000/- has been shown withdrawn from the account of the complainant, whereas only an amount of Rs.9,000/- was discharged by the ATM of the opposite party No.2. On the same date March 05^th, 2013, the complainant requested the opposite parties either to pay the amount of Rs.9,000/- in cash which was wrongly debited from his account or to credit the amount in his S.B.I. saving bank account.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the complainant in cash or to credit the same in his saving bank account with the opposite party No.1 along with up to date interest; to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite party No.1 in its written version has taken plea that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that it is not a case of deficiency in service. It is pleaded that the complaint regarding use of ATM by the complainant was forwarded to the Complaint Management System which has replied that the transactions were successful. In view of the report received from the Complaint Management System, the claim of the complainant is wrong and false. In fact, the complainant successfully completed both the transactions and amount was received from the ATM as shown in reports Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with cost.  

5.                The Opposite Party No.2 in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that it is not a case of deficiency in service.  It is pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party No.2 as he was having his saving bank account with the opposite party No.1 – State Bank of India. It is admitted fact that the complainant used the ATM of the opposite party No.2 installed at Jain Mandir, D.C.M. Mill Road, Hisar and was successful to withdraw an amount of Rs9,000/- vide transaction No.5479 using ATM card No.6220180065200055542 on March 05^th, 2013 at 08:45:19 a.m.  It is also pleaded that another ATM of the opposite party No.2 installed at Rajguru Market, Hisar was used by the complainant at 08:53:36 a.m. using his ATM card. It was also a successful transaction No.4946.  In this way, the complainant was successful in withdrawing an amount of Rs.18,000/- on the same date. Report was received from Circle Office, Hisar Audit Section mentioning that “The transaction No.4946 and 5479 are successful and no excess cash found in reconciliation”. In this way, the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount from the opposite party No.2 also. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complaint be dismissed with cost.

6.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated January 16^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint; to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.1,000/- as litigation  expenses.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated January 16^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-opposite party No.2 Punjab National Bank has filed the present First Appeal No.315 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

10.              It is admitted fact that the complainant Arjun Ram was having his saving account No.10311441360 with the opposite party No.1 – State Bank of India. The complainant was also provided ATM card facility and ATM card bearing No.6220180065200055542 was issued to him. It is also admitted fact that on March 05^th, 2013 the complainant used his ATM card to withdraw an amount of rrs.9,000/- from his saving bank account. The complainant inserted his ATM card in the ATM belonging to the opposite party No.2 in the premises of Jain Mandir, DCM Mill Road, Hisar. As per version of the complainant after entering pin number, he wanted to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,000/- from the ATM but neither the ATM discharged the amount of Rs.9,000/- for collection by the complainant nor any printed slip showing balance in his account. On the same date, the complainant used his same ATM card to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,000/- by inserting ATM card and by using pin number in the ATM installed by the opposite party No.2 at Rajguru Market, Hisar. It is also admitted fact that this second transaction was successful and the complainant received an amount of Rs.9,000/- which was discharged by the ATM. Printed slip was also received mentioning withdrawal of an amount of Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/-.

11.              Version of the complainant is that his first attempt to use his ATM card to withdraw an amount of Rs.9,000/- was unsuccessful and he only received an amount of Rs.9,000/- in his second attempt by using his ATM card in the ATM installed in Rajguru Market, Hisar. Version of the opposite parties in this case is that both the transactions mentioned above were successful and the complainant was successful in withdrawing an amount of Rs.9,000/- by using ATM installed by the opposite party No.2 in the premises near Jain Mandir, DCM Road, Hisar and second time he was successful in withdrawing an amount of Rs.9,000/- from his saving bank account by using his ATM card in the ATM installed in Rajguru Market, Hisar. In this regard, admittedly a complaint was filed by the complainant before the opposite parties. The complaint of the complainant was forwarded to Complaint Management System and report Annexure A-1 and A-2 were received from Complaint Management System showing that both the transactions dated March 05^th, 2013 were successful and an amount of Rs.9,000/- was withdrawn in each transaction.

12.              The entire system of the ATM is a computerized system. As per report the transaction No.4946 and 5479 were successful and no excess cash was found in reconciliation. The ATMs are installed by various banks throughout the country. These ATMs are supported by the high grade technology and excellent surveillance.  All the transactions of ATMs meet all the stringent safety and security criteria.  There is Journal Printer in the machine, which records each and every transaction done through the ATM. In the statement of account Annexure R-1 also, it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.18,000/- was withdrawn in these two transactions. Collective perusal of the reports and reconciliation received (Annexure R-3 and R-4) made it clear that it was a successful transaction and the complainant was successful in withdrawing an amount of Rs.18,000/- from his saving bank account.

13.              Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant but has not given any good or sound reason. It appears that the learned District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant presuming that the complainant filed his complaint only because he was not successful in withdrawing an amount of Rs.9,000/-.  In our view, in case the complainant could not withdraw the amount of Rs.9,000/- using his ATM card, it was his duty to prove this fact. The complainant failed to prove that the above mentioned transaction was not successful. Relief cannot be granted to the complainant merely because he took decision to file the complaint.

14.              As a result as per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned District Forum committed an error while passing the impugned order dated January 16^th, 2017. The impugned order is held to be illegal, invalid and is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed.

15.              The statutory amount of Rs.7800/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 28.03.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL