Haryana

Karnal

03/2014

Rohtash S/o Ramesh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank., Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rohtash

12 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.03 of 2014

                                                          Date of instt.3.01.2014

                                                          Date of decision:19.03.2015

 

Rohtash son of Shri  Ramesh Chand resident of village Bara Goan tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.Canara Bank, New Grain Market, GT Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.Punjab National Bank, Kunjpura Branch Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

 

 

Present:-       Complainant in person.

                    Sh.Y.S.Chauhan Advocate for the OP No.1.

                    Hanumant Singh Advocate for the OP No.2.

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he was having saving account No. 3161101000282 with the  OP No.1 and on 30.6.2013 the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.2 and tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from the ATM Machine but the  amount could not be withdrawn  but a slip came out from the machine in which transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was shown .  The complainant on 1.7.2013 approached the OP No.1 and made written complaints vide Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and the officials of OP No.1 assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the Ops continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services.  The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the  complaint.

2.       The OP  No.1 filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action for filing the present coplaint; that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint etc.

 

          On merits, it was contended that  the complainant at 11.05AM used his ATM to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- by using the ATM bearing I.D.No.D 1326800 of Punjab National Bank, Kunjpura and response code was 000,meaning thereby the same was successful and Rs.10,000/- were withdrawn by the complainant through ATM as per record submitted by the Punjab National Bank. It was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of answering OP No.1 and dismissal of the complaint has been sought. Sh.Ajay Dhamija, Branch Manager of OP No.1 has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.

                    The OP No.2 has also filed its separate written statement raising the preliminary objections that  the complaint was not maintainable; that the present complaint was bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint.

                    On merits, it was contended  that the complainant on 30.6.2013  had used the ATM Machine belonging to the OP No.2 at V & PO Kunjpura District Karnal for withdrawal of amount of  Rs.10,000/- and the said transaction was  successful one and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP No.2 and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                Therefore,  from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the  complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the allegations that he was having saving account No. 3161101999282 with the  OP No.1 and on 30.6.2012 the complainant used ATM Machine of OP No.2 and tried to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from the ATM Machine but the  amount could not be withdrawn  but a slip came out from the machine in which transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was shown .  The complainant on 1.7.2013 approached the OP No.1 and made written complaints vide Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and the officials of OP No.1 assured the complainant to redress the grievance of the complainant but the officials of the Ops continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately amount was not returned which tantamounts to deficiency in services.  The complainant has also placed photo copy of the pass book Ex.C3 showing the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- on the file.

 

                   However, as per the contentions of the Ops, the complainant used the ATM Machine on 30.6.2013 for withdrawal of Rs.10, 000/- and the transaction was successful. Meaning thereby the complainant had withdrawn the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- as shown in the J.P.Roll.

 

                   The OP No.2 has also asserted that the transaction was successful and the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.10, 000/- on 30.6.2013 and after enquiry no extra amount was found in the ATM.  The Ops have also attached several correspondence in order to ascertain as to whether the afore stated transaction of the complainant was successful or not.

         

5.                Therefore, after going through the  evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that  the complainant on 30.6.2013 used the ATM Machine of Punjab National Bank, Kunjpura for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- but the said amount was not  allegedly received. Though, the slip showing the transaction came out.  The said transaction dated 30.6.2013 has been reflected in the J.P.Log Ex.P16 to Ex.P18. The Ops have also attached report of Switch Transaction dated 30.6.2013 wherein the said transaction has been shown as successful.   Similarly, in the report showing cash withdrawal by the Punjab National Bank Customer Ex.OP20 in which a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been shown to have been withdrawn by using the ATM in question which belongs to the OP No.2.  Therefore, there is voluminous evidence on the file to show that the complainant used the ATM card for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-  from the ATM Machine of OP No.2 and the said transaction was successful.

 

6.                 The argument that   no CC footage has been placed on the file by the Ops and as such the Ops concealed the material evidence and  thus  complaint was liable to be accepted is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the order passed by the Hon,ble State Commission   in the appeal  No.227 of 2013  decided on 23.5.2013  titled  Bank of India Versus Ashok Kumar.  In the said Judgment, the Hon, ble State

Commission has held as below:

 

                                                          “Even  otherwise, the ATM card remains with the possession of the complainant alongwith its secret number and nobody can withdraw any amount without secret code number.”

 

               The Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh has also taken the same view.

                   Therefore, in view of the law laid down  in the above referred authority and in view of the fact that Pin code is a secret and the ATM is also a very personal document of the customer and without using the secret pin code and the ATM card, the transaction cannot be completed. Therefore, as per J.P.Log report which has reflected  the transaction successful, it has to be held that the complainant used the ATM card by inserting secret pin code and thus the transaction was completed.  It is pertinent to mention that as per version of the complainant, he received the receipt of the transaction itself shows that the transaction was successful and there is no reason as to why the money was not received by the complainant.

                         It is pertinent to mention here that there is nothing on the file  in order to infer that on the particular date the particular machine was not functioning properly.  There is no other complaint regarding irregular functioning of the said ATM machine. Therefore, when the J.P.Log has shown the transaction successful then in the absence of any contrary evidence on the file, it could not be assumed that the said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and as such we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 19.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-       Complainant in person.

                    Sh.Y.S.Chauhan Advocate for the OP No.1.

                    Hanumant Singh Advocate for the OP No.2.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 19.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.