Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/202/2012

Hargobind Ram s/o Sh.Jaga Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, PNB - Opp.Party(s)

Parma Nand

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 202 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 27.02.2012   

                                                                                          Date of decision: 07.12.2016

 

Hargobind Ram son of Sh. Jaga Ram, aged about 57 years, resident of House No.392, Gandhi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                      

            …Complainant.

                                               Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jagadhri Railway Station Road, near Paper Mill gate, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chatha Complex, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.
3. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Gobindpuri Road, near JK Residency Hotel, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                  …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Complainant in person with counsel Sh. Parmanand, Advocate.

                         Sh. Pardeep Rathore, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2.

                         Sh. KK Gupta, Advocate for OP No.3

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that he along with his wife Smt. Rambha Devi is having joint the saving/salary account bearing No.0471000100331844 with the PNB Bank Jagadhri (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) and also having an ATM Card  bearing No.5048840471000008558. On 03.10.2011, complainant was in need of money for his personal work so the complainant visited ATM machine of the PNB Bank installed in the Paper Mill Campus but there was no cash in the ATM machine therefore the complainant visited the ATM of ICICI Bank (ATM ID 1554) near paper mill gate adjoining Vivekanand School. At first time ATM card was not accepted by the said ATM Machine, later with the help of ATM Machine Guard, at a bout 08:15am ATM Card was accepted and complainant operated the ATM and entered his demand of Rs.10,000/- but after completion of transaction no cash was dispensed from the machine to the complainant. Upon this, complainant again asked the guard that no cash has been received by him but SMS alert acknowledge the debit of Rs.10,000/- from the account of complainant. After that, complainant visited the Branch office and complained about the matter to the concerned official of the PNB Bank who directed to register his complaint on Toll Free Number 18001802222, and accordingly a complaint was lodged vide token No.56303691 and official of the PNB Bank further directed to the complainant to visit after 7 days. After 7 days, when complainant visited the said official, he said that your complaint has been rejected by the ICICI Bank so far solving your query you need to visit Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Yamuna Nagar. Then, the complainant approached the ICICI bank Manager, the manager also was not in position to resolve the issue by saying that he will reply to the concerned branch if they will make any correspondence regarding this matter. After that, complainant visited so many times to the PNB Bank as well as ICICI Bank, ultimately they started saying that they cannot help him any more as cash has been delivered to him. Thereafter, they have also provided the switch report, recon sheet, JP Log of the same ATM ID 5114 for dated 03.10.2011. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Bank and lastly prayed for directing the OPs Bank to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest @ 2% per annum from the date of withdrawal of the amount and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.1 and 2 Bank as the complainant on 03.10.2011 has withdrawn the amount of Rs.10,000/-  form the ATM Machine of the ICICI Bank and as per the CCTV Footage of ATM Camera, the complainant has withdrawn the said amount on 03.10.2011 from the said ATM Machine. Later on, the ICICI Bank after considering all the facts relating to transaction and other materials i.e. report of ICICI Bank regarding the time of inserting ATM Card and presentation of cash and withdrawal of amount rightly rejected the claim of the complainant and on merit it has been denied that ATM Machine of the PNB Bank in Paper Mill Campus was not functioning properly, as alleged in the complaint and further it has also been denied that no amount of Rs.10,000/- through ATM Machine of ICICI Bank was dispensed to the complainant. However, it is admitted that complainant made his complaint to the Toll Fee Number and whereupon after checking all the records, the OP No.3 ICICI Bank issued a detailed report and as per report, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the ICICI Bank and lastly it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.3 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Court with clean hands; there is no cause of action; complainant is bad for misjoinder and unnecessary parties and on merit it has been denied that no cash was dispensed from the ATM machine to the complainant on 03.10.2011 as alleged. In fact the said transaction was successful on 03.10.2011 at 08:16:43 AM, vide card No. 5048840471000008558 1334 000 and account No. 047100010033184. Moreover, the cash was also tallied on 03.10.2011 and no excess cash available on the transaction date as per copy of EJ and switch report and other contents of the complaint were denied and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CA and application dated 15.03.2013 as Annexure C1 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Suresh Kumar, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Yamuna Nagar as RW1/A, copy of account statement as R1/1, JP Log as R1/2 and R1/3 and photocopy of recon sheet and no excess cash report as annexure R1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.3 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Rohil Gupta, Manager ICICI Bank Annexure R3/A, account statement as Annexure R3/1 and R3/2 and copy of JP Log as Annexure R3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant along with his wife Smt. Rambha Devi was having joint saving/salary account bearing No. 0471000100331844 with the PNB Bank Jagadhri i.e. OP No.1 and also having an ATM Card. The only version of the complainant is that the cash amount of Rs.10,000/- was not dispensed to the complainant from the ATM Machine and the amount in question was not refunded to the complainant by the OPs Bank despite so many requests and complaint lodged on Toll Free Number.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that as per recon sheet (Annexure R1/4), no excess cash was found on the date of transaction and further as per JP Log (R1/2 and R1/3) of the same ATM for the date on 03.10.2016, the transaction was successful. Even, as per the CCTV Footage of the ATM Camera, the complainant has withdrawn the said amount on 03.10.2011 from the said ATM machine. Learned counsel for the OPs further draws our attention towards Annexure R1/1 and argued that complainant had withdrawn the amount 3 times firstly Rs.10,000/- and Secondly Rs.5000/- and thirdly Rs.5000/-  on the same day and how it is possible that complainant received Rs.5000/- twicely and not received Rs.10,000/-  and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned counsel for the OPs referred a case law titled as “ Chenaram Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, Revision Petition No.307 of 2016, decided on 11.02.2016”  and “The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Versus Samuel Tirkey and others, 2013 (3) CLT, Page No.604” and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties and going through the case law titled as Chenaram Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce and “The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Versus Samuel Tirkey and others (Supra) referred by the counsel for the OPs Bank, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. From the perusal of JP log Annexure R1/2 and R1/3, it is duly evident that alleged transaction was successful as it has been mentioned that “Cash Taken” at 08:15:43 am. Further, from the perusal of recon sheet (Annexure R1/4) it is also duly evident that complaint of the complainant for not disbursing the amount Rs.10,000/- was rejected by the Bank i.e. OP No.3 as no excess cash was found on the date of transaction. Further, we have also perused the account statement Annexure R1/1 of the PNB Bank and from the perusal of this, it is duly evident that complainant firstly withdrew Rs.10,000/-  on 03.10.2011 and then withdrew Rs.5000/- twicely on the same day from his account. But, this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant in his complaint. As per version mentioned in the complaint, complainant was in need of Rs.10,000/- and due to that he operated the ATM of the OP No.3 Bank but no cash was disbursed to him, but he has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that after that he withdrew the amount of Rs.5000/- twicely. Further, the complainant has not placed on file any cogent evidence from which this Forum can presume that the amount of Rs.10,000/-  was not disbursed to the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that ATM machine was not working properly, as such the complainant has failed to prove his case that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:

Dated: 07.12.2016

                       

                        (S.C.SHARMA)                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                         MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

                                                                                  DCDRF Yamuna Nagar