Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/139

HARPREET KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Opp.Party(s)

GAMDOOR SINGH SUREWALIA

05 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          139 of 2017

Date of Institution :     26.04.2017

Date of Decision :         5.02.2019

Harpreet Kaur w/o Jangir Singh r/o Teacher Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                 .....Complainant

Versus

 

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Satta Bazar, Kotkapura, Near Railway Station, Kotkapura.                                                                                      ......OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                    Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Gumdoor Singh Surewalia, Ld Counsel for Complainants,

 Sh Ravinder Parkash Goyal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 Sh Ravinder Goyal, Ld Counsel for OP-2.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                    Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to Ops to credit the amount of Rs.10,020/-illegally debited from the account of complainant and to pay Rs.90,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses to complainant.

 

Complaint No.- 139 of 2017

2                                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a resident of Teacher Colony, Faridkot and is having an account with OP-1 Bank and ATM card has also been issued to her. It is submitted that complainant gave her ATM card to her husband for making withdrawal. Husband of complainant made three entries from the ATM of OP-2 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and out of these three entries Rs.10,000/-were released, which were received by him and Rs.10,000/-debited from the account of complainant, were duly credited in her account. But amount of Rs.10,000/-debited during one of three entries, was neither received by complainant nor credited in the account. It was the time of demonetization during which there was a condition that more than ten thousands could not be withdrawn from the account. Complainant reported the matter to OP-1 and also got registered her complaint for illegal debiting of amount of Rs.10,000/- on 3.02.2017, 21.02.2017 and 16.03.2017 but without listening the complainant, OP-2 rejected the complaints of complainant. OP-1 harassed the complainant by calling her in bank and despite repeated requests, they did not redress the grievance of complainant. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.05.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement wherein it took preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between complainant and answering OP. Complainant used the ATM of OP-2 and thus, dispute is between complainant and OP-2 and there is no deficiency in

Complaint No.- 139 of 2017

service on their part. It is asserted that complainant has a saving account with them and after probing the complaint moved by complainant to them, she was informed that her complaint regarding dispute of amount of Rs.10,000/-withdrawal from ATM was rejected by State Bank of India/OP-2. On merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that ATM Card and its password are not be parted with and if it has been done by her, then complainant has done so at her own risk and responsibility. When complainant reported the matter to OP-1, it immediately sent the Chargeback Form to concerned authorities vide no.30487/17 dated 1.02.2017, which was rejected by SBI/OP-2 and then, they again sent Chargeback Form to OP-2 on 21.02.2017 regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-of complainant, but SBI again rejected the same. Thereafter, on 16.03.2017, OP-1 further sent another Chargeback Form to OP-2, but again OP-2 rejected the same. OP-1 immediately informed complainant about this. It is confirmed by Digital Banking Department (DBD) Bathinda Cluster that two transaction have been successful vide code 00 and in one transaction, amount was credited back to account holder vide code 28. There is no deficiency in service on their part as they have done their best quite efficiently. All the allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

5                                          OP-2 filed written reply wherein took preliminary objection that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable against answering OP as complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as complainant has not made party her husband who withdrew the amount from ATM. It is averred that no person other than the ATM holder is entitled to withdraw the amount from ATM. It is further averred that three transactions were attempted to withdraw the amount and Rs.10,000/-were received by her husband and one entry was reversed. As per JP Log of ATM, the amount of Rs.10,000/-was

Complaint No.- 139 of 2017

withdrawn and cash was received by the person operating the same and as such Rs.10,020/-were debited from her account. It is brought before the Forum that during those days cash withdrawal limit was 24,000/-and not 10,000/-as alleged by complainant and even as per Report of FIS ATM Management Service which loads cash in ATMs,  no excess cash was found in the ATM on the day when ATM was operated by husband of complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                              Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-9 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh  Punit Kumar as Ex. OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to OP-1/10 and then, closed the evidence. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Vass Dev Bansal as Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to OP-2/3 and closed the same on behalf of OP-2.

8                                               We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

9                                                Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant holds an account with OP-1 Bank and ATM card has also been issued to her. Complainant gave her ATM card to her husband for making some withdrawal. Husband of complainant made three entries from the ATM of OP-2 for

Complaint No.- 139 of 2017

withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and out of these three entries Rs.10,000/-were released, which were received by him and Rs.10,000/-debited from the account of complainant were duly credited in her account. But Rs.10,000/-debited during one of three entries, were neither received by complainant nor credited in the account. It was the time of demonetization during which there was a condition that more than ten thousands could not be withdrawn from the account. Despite filing complaint before OPs, OPs did not credit the amount of Rs.10,000/-illegally debited from the account of complaint. Complainant made complaints on 3.02.2017, 21.02.2017 and 16.03.2017 but without listening the complainant, OP-2 rejected her complaints. They did not redress the grievance of complainant and caused much harassment to complainant. She has prayed for accepting the complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 9.

10                                       To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they have done their best to resolve the problem of complainant as on receipt of complaint from complainant, they immediately sent the Chargeback Form to concerned authorities on 1.02.2017, 21.02.2017 and 16.03.2017 regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-of complainant, but every time SBI/OP-2 rejected the same. Due intimation regarding same was given to complainant. Moreover, as per information received and transmitted via Electronic media by the system itself, it is confirmed by Digital Department Bathinda Cluster that two transactions were successful vide code 00 and in one transaction, amount was credited back to account of complainant vide code 28. There is no deficiency in service on their part as they have done their best quite efficiently. All the other allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

Complaint No.- 139 of 2017

 11                        Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued before the Forum that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as complainant has not made party her husband who withdrew the amount from ATM. Except ATM holder no other person is entitled to withdraw the amount from ATM. It is further argued that three transactions were attempted to withdraw the amount and Rs.10,000/-were received by her husband and one entry was reversed. As per JP Log of ATM, the amount of Rs.10,000/-was withdrawn and cash was received by the person operating the same and as such Rs.10,020/-were debited from her account. It is brought before the Forum that during those days cash withdrawal limit was 24,000/-and not 10,000/-. Moreover, as per Report of FIS ATM Management Service which loads cash in ATMs,  no excess cash was found in the ATM on the day when ATM was operated by her husband. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12                                  We have thoroughly gone through the case file, evidence and documents placed on record and have carefully perused the pleadings of parties. It is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant is an account holder of OP-1 Bank and also holds ATM card issued by  OP-1. She gave her ATM card to her husband for making withdrawal and her husband made three entries from the ATM of OP-2 for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-. Only one entry was passed as during the third attempt of withdrawal, Rs.10,000/-were released, which were received by him. Rs.10,000/-debited from the account of complainant were duly credited in her account. But Rs.10,000/- also debited from the account of complainant due to one of three entries were not credited in the account. Due to demonetization only ten thousands could be withdrawn from account. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests by complainant, OPs did not credit the amount wrongly debited from her account and it caused her financial loss,

Complaint No.- 139 of 2017

mental agony and harassment. She has prayed for accepting the complaint. On the other hand, plea taken by OP-1 is that as per information received and transmitted via Electronic media by the system itself, it is confirmed by Digital Department Bathinda Cluster that two transactions were successful vide code 00 and in one transaction, amount was credited back to account of complainant vide code 28. There is no deficiency in service on their part as they have done their best quite efficiently. Stand taken by OP-2 is that as per JP Log of ATM, the amount of Rs.10,000/-was withdrawn and cash was received by her husband and thus Rs.10,020/-were debited from her account. Moreover, during those days cash withdrawal limit was 24,000/-and not 10,000/-. Even as per Report of FIS ATM Management Service which loads cash in ATMs,  no excess cash was found in the ATM on the day when ATM was operated by her husband. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Ld Counsel for OP-2 brought before the Forum copy of EJ ATM No.6 from where complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/-. There is no doubt and it is crystal clear that transaction of Rs.10,000/-is successfully made and cash is received by the person who operated the said ATM Card. Even in his letter, Anil Kumar Pandey, Custodian of SIS Company stated to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kotkapura that he has tallied the cash on 30.01.2017 and has not found any excess cash from the automatic transaction machine. There is no doubt  to disbelief the statement of Anil Pandey custodian of ATM, who has no interest in this case. Moreover, OP-1 has also stressed on the point that as per information received and transmitted via Electronic media, it is confirmed by Digital Department Bathinda Cluster that two transactions were successful vide code 00. And in one transaction, amount was credited back to the account of complainant vide code 28. OP-2 has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove its case.

Complaint No.- 139 of 2017

Documents placed on record by OPs are authentic and are beyond any doubt, which make it clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

13                           From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence and pleadings made by Parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that no loss has been occurred to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 5.02.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                          President