Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/240

Jai Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.Balwant Singh Adv.

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.        

                                                         Complaint No: 240 dated 30.03.2017                         

                                                  Date of decision: 24.04.2018                

Jai Pal Singh aged 41 years son of S.Gurcharan Singh, resident of Street No.11, Satguru Nagar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant                                                            Versus

Axis Bank Limited, Threekay Branch, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                      …..Opposite party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT                                                                               SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Balwant Singh Toor, Advocate.                                         For OP                        :         Sh.Ranjit Singh, Advocate

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT                                                                                  1.                 Complainant, holder of saving account No.912010063760339 with OP bank has been maintaining his account regularly. Debit Card No.4179170017880293 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘293’) was issued in respect of above said saving bank account. Even complainant got registered his mobile number 98153-85814 with OP, due to which, he has been receiving SMS on the said mobile, as and when any transaction takes place in the above said bank account. In February 2017, complainant got completed his passbook entries and then he was shocked to know that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been deducted from the above said account on 28.01.2017. Complainant claims that no such amount has been withdrawn by him. Details of transaction were obtained from Op, vide which, intimation was given to complainant as if amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn from his account through card No.4059880205327262 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘262’). Complainant is not holding any such card and nor the same was ever issued in the name of complainant. So, fraud alleged to be committed with the complainant in active connivance and conspiracy with the officials of OP. Complaint was lodged with OP on 1.2.2017 and thereafter, despite many visits made to OP, officials of OP kept on procrastinating the matter. Finally on 1.3.2017, the officials of OP refused to take any action. It is claimed that OP have provided deficient service and even adopted unfair trade practice resulting in mental and physical harassment of complainant. After serving legal notice dated 3.3.2017, this complaint filed for seeking credit of amount of Rs.10,000/- back in the account of complainant. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written reply filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable; complaint is filed on false and frivolous ground for getting illegal gain. In fact, complainant withdrew many times amounts from his account through ATM card bearing No.293 and same has been reflected in the statement of account. Each and every other allegation of complaint denied except that of service of legal notice dated 3.3.2017 on OP through counsel for calling upon it to credit amount of Rs.10,000/- back to his account.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1/A of Sh.Divkaran Singh Duggal, Branch Manager along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for the parties and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that complainant never withdrew any amount of Rs.10,000/- on 28.01.2017 through ATM transaction,  but despite that the said amount shown as withdrawn in his statement of account printed in the passbook, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C3 by the complainant, but as Ex.R1 by the OP. After withdrawal of this amount of Rs.10,000/- through ATM transaction, balance left out in the account of complainant is of Rs.1,17,655.17P. It is contended by counsel for complainant that said amount never withdrawn by the complainant, but that submission of counsel for complainant has no force because contents of Ex.C2 itself establishes as if amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from the  account on 28.01.2017, but by use                                              of card No.262. If contents of Ex.C2 taken into consideration, then the same shows as if amount of Rs.10,000/- withdrawn from an account,  on account                              of transaction conducted through card no.262. However, in fact that is not the position because transaction slip Ex.R2 shows as if amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn from ATM on 28.01.2017 from account of complainant through card No.293. By use of card no.262, another amount on the same day was withdrawn leaving balance of amount of Rs.11,911.12P in account No.50xxxxxxxx512. However in respect of transaction of ATM withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- through card No.293, the balance left is mentioned at Rs.1,17,655.17P. In slip Ex.R2, at least three transactions of withdrawal are reflected with different account numbers and different card numbers. The transaction highlighted with yellow marker in fact pertains to use of ATM card No.293 belonging to the complainant. In this transaction, balance left out mentioned as Rs.1,17,655.17P after withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/-. That balance exactly reflected in Ex.C3=Ex.R3. So, virtually the record of Ex.R2 as well as Ex.R1 shows as if amount of Rs.10,000/- actually was withdrawn through ATM from the account of complainant by use of credit card No.293. Ex.C2 does not make reference of account number of complainant and as such, Ex.C2 may have been erroneously issued by the bank, but Ex.R2 depict the correct position regarding transaction through ATM held on 28.01.2017 during period from 16:35 hours to 16:37 hours. Transaction from card No.293 of complainant conducted at 16:35 hours, but transaction reflected in Ex.C2 from card no.262 transacted at 16:36 hours and as such, there is difference of timing of two transactions held through card No.293 and 262. So, Ex.R2 reflects the correct position and if that be the position, then certainly due account maintained by OP for showing the withdrawal of amount of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant on 28.01.2017.

7.                Even if  Ex.C1 may be mentioning that report regarding illegal withdrawal lodged, despite that the same cannot be taken as ground for holding      that OP provided deficient services because now OP has produced the complete transaction slip Ex.R2 for showing the ATM transactions conducted during period from 16:35 hours to 16:37 hours as referred above. Delay in reporting virtually also acknowledged by the complainant through complaint because transaction took place on 28.1.2017, but the complainant lodged the report on 1.2.2017 as per complaint itself and same is mentioned in Ex.C1 itself. So, even if OP may initially have not furnished the satisfactory reply, but now before this Forum, OP has produced due material for showing that transaction at 16:35 hours conducted through ATM from card of complainant. After going through Ex.C2, it is made out that transaction conducted at 16:36 hours through card No.262 is virtually subject matter of this slip Ex.C2. So, slip Ex.C2 pertains to different ATM transaction through card No.262 than one conducted by complainant at 16:35 hours through his own card No.293. Being so, benefit from Ex.C2 is not available to the complainant. As due entries in the passbook incorporated regarding withdrawal of amount through ATM transaction on 28.01.2017 and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and nor OP can be said to have adopted any unfair trade practice.

8.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order  be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                 File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                            (Vinod Gulati)                                 (G.K.Dhir)                                                     Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum                                                            Dated:24.04.2018                                                                                            Gurpreet Sharma.