DATE OF FILING : 17.09.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 05.12.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29.07.2015.
Dhaneswar Adhikary,
son of Niranjan Adhikary,
residing at 19, Ainuddin Ghat Mali Lane,
District Howrah,
PIN 711101. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Branch Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Howrah Maidan Branch,
situated at 2, Belilious Road,
Howrah – 711101.
2. The Chief Manager,
ATM Circle Office,
situated at 125/1, Park Street,
Kolkata 700017. ………...……………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Dhaneshwar Adhikary, praying for a direction upon the Branch Manager, P.N.B. Howrah Main Branch, and Chief Manager, ATM Circle Office of P.N.B., to refund or credit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the S.B.I. account of the petitioner and also directing o.ps. to pay a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he has a savings bank account in the o.p. no. 1 branch of P.N.B. since 2012 being salary account and appearing the same and enjoys SMS facility. The petitioner provided with an ATM Card and on 06.10.2012 at 8.10 a.m. he inserted his ATM Card and pushed button for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the Belilious ATM Counter of the o.p. but the screen of the monitor of ATM Machine became whitening and as such he pushed a cancellation button and there was no extraction of money on that particular time. At the relevant time his balance in the account was Rs. 33,436/- and as he was need of money he pushed the ATM Card for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and received the cash and also withdrew Rs. 13,400/- by a self cheque no. 592982 and on the said date received SMS that his balance stands Rs. 36/-. After receiving the message he became confused and contacted the Branch Manager and told him all facts and the manager assured him that he would look into the matter very soon and the amount would be credited to his account. But the o.p., Manager, did not credit the amount and on 18.10.2012 he lodged a written complaint before the o.p. and after lapse of two months the o.p. did not credit the amount and on 19.12.2012 he filed another complaint before the o.p. who remained silent and lastly on 05.4.2013 he again lodged a complaint before o.p. no. 2 who did not pay any heed to him and thus compelling him to file this case.
3. The o.p. bank contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations of the petitioner and stating that the case is not maintainable as it is made on false, baseless and frivolous ground and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and had also the case is barred by limitation. The o.ps. never practiced any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and the o.p. also denied the case of the petitioner that he arrived at the ATM Counter at 8.10 a.m. on 06.10.2012 and inserted his ATM Card for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the rest facts which are not true and the petitioner used the card twice at 8.24 a.m. and 8.28 a.m. and withdrew Rs. 10,000/- each in each attempt and again on the same day he has withdrawn Rs. 13,400/- by submitting cheque and thus there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps. against whom the case be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. This Forum scrutinizes the cases of the parties and the documents filed by both the parties being the pass book of the petitioner showing that on 06.10.2012 there was withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- each by using ATM Card and Rs. 13,400/- by a self cheque and the same is corporated and confirmed by the bank wherefrom the report showing cash withdrawal by P.N.B. Customers from ATM showing that this petitioner used his ATM for the first time at 8.24 a.m. on 06.10.2012 and had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and then on 8.28 a.m. on the same day he has again withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus on two occasions the ATM Card hit the machine and Rs. 10,000/- withdrawn from the ATM Counter. The petitioner in his petition submitted that he inserted the card on 8.10 a.m. on 06.10.2012 but no such transaction is found in the report showing cash withdrawal on 06.10.2012 and besides, the two transactions made by him the previous transaction was at 8.00 a.m. for a sum of Rs. 500/- only and after 8.00 a.m. and till 8.28 a.m. there were only two transactions namely one at 8.24 a.m. and 8.28 a.m. and both were done by the petitioner and none others. Further the credit card was in possession of the petitioner and the PIN was also within his knowledge. So there is no case that besides him any other person has operated ATM Card and withdrew the amount. Rather the report showing that it is the petitioner who used the ATM Card twice and had withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- on each occasion and thus his allegations that the machine got whiten and no money came out after such transaction have no legs to stand. Further he submitted that on the same day he went to the Manager and complaint against such transaction but besides his verbal allegation there is no document before this Forum to prove the fact that he made such allegation on 06.10.2012 rather for the first time he lodged in writing on 18.10.2012. Thus his own acts and conducts not only dispute his case but also the document of o.p. being the report showing cash withdrawal by P.N.B. Customers from ATM proved that the petitioner himself had withdrawn the money as a man may lie but not the document which came out from machine on 06.10.2012.
In view of above discussion and findings the case of the petitioner is false.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No.504 of 2014 ( HDF 504 of 2014 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order is passed as to costs.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
