Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1097/2012

Sandeep Kumar Sharma s/o Sh.Krishan Lal sharma, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager PNB - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1097 of 2012

                                                                                    Date of institution: 09.10.2012    

                                                                                    Date of decision: 24.07.2017

 

 

Sandeep Kumar Sharma, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Krishan Lal Sharma, House No.234, Janta Street, Behind Joginder Market, Yamuna Nagar

                …Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. Chief Manager Punjab National Bank, Yamuna Nagar.

 

2. The Manager Punjab National Bank, Retgal Branch, Kurukshetra.

 

3. Shri RK Bora, the then Manager Punjab National Bank C/o the Manager PNB, Tegal Branch, Kurukshetra, since transferred else where.

 

4. The Chairman, Punjab National Bank, PNB Hd. Qrs. Office 7 Bhikaji Came Place, New Delhi.

 

5. The General Manager (Vigilance) PNB HD. Qrs. Office 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

 

                                                                                                              …Respondents.

 

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

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

                      SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND………....MEMBER.

 

Present:          Shri S.S. Saini, Advocate for complainant

                      Shri Atul Jaiswal, Advocate for OPs.

                                      

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (amended upto date) against the respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant is having SF Account No. 3701000100218919 in PNB Model Town, Branch Yamuna Nagar against which ATM card has been issued to withdraw amount from any bank. The complainant along with his wife went to ATM Retgal Branch of PNB kurukshetra on 16.09.2011 at about 05.15 pm to withdraw amount of Rs.15000/- from his account in question but the amount could not be withdrawn however, the said amount was found debited in his account. Upon which complainant met Shri Bora the Manager of Retgal Branch Kurukshetra and complained against this illegal debit of amount of Rs.15000/- though not disbursed from ATM and requested to get examined ATM or at least to check the (LCD) Monitor lying on his table but he flatly refused to check and asked him to complaint on telephone 18001802222. After that, he requested manager to acknowledge his complaint, but he refused to acknowledge the same. Thereafter, the complainant phoned on the above toll free number and his complaint entered and again lodged his complaint on 22.09.2011 however, he was informed that his complaint has been rejected. On inquiry, it was told to his that his transaction is successful. He again went to the PNB Retgal Branch, Kurukshetra and requested him to supply a copy of transaction print out as well as copy of CCTV Camera recording but he asked him to apply first and then to come after 7 days, so the complainant sent application to him as well as Manager PNB Model Town, Yamuna Nagar by courier on 11.10.2011. The complainant again submitted applications on 15.11.2011 by speed post and after that he met the Manager but he put off matter on one pretext or the other. In fact, intention of the said Manager was malafide as he never wanted to supply him the copies of transaction print out as well as copy of CCTV Camera recording. It is further mentioned that it was the duty of the said Manager of the Bank to get FIR registered in the police immediately when he was informed about non transaction of account on 16.09.2011 or even if he might have checked after him and this fraud was well in his knowledge but he never got FIR registered and put off the matter on one pretext or the other to save either his own accountability/responsibility or to save the culprits. After that, the complainant sent one application to chairman with a copy to GM vigilance of PNB with the request of get the case investigated after inspecting above copies himself and further request that amount of Rs.15000/- + unnecessary expenses incurred may be refunded and credited into his account but all in vain. Lastly, it has been prayed that the OPs be directed to bring a copy of transaction print out and CCTV Camera recording for the period of 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm  on 16.092011 and also further prayed to make the payment of Rs.15000/- along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.     

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement jointly taking some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had handed over his ATM Card to some third person with his own sweet will and must have told his pass word to him who had operated the account of the complainant and the transaction was successfully made. The Bank is not liable for any mishappening if it had occurred due to negligence of the complainant himself. The OP Bank, on the request of the complainant had contacted their circle office and Head office and demanded the details of transaction done by the complainant. The circle office after checking the report had revealed that all the transaction made by complainant on 16.09.2011 were made successfully which was revealed to the complainant and as per will of the complainant, the OP Bank had also showed the CCTV recording to the complainant on 22.12.2011 in which it was cleared that the complainant had handed over his ATM card to a third person, who operated the account. The complainant had also knowledged the same and had given in writing that “ I have seen the recording of CCTV Clip” and signed the same. If any fraud or cheating has been done by someone with the complainant than he should have lodged an FIR with the police. The bank is not liable to do any proceeding in the matter if the ATM Card and code which has been used by the complainant or by his agent. The present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; the Forum at Yamunanagar has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint as the ATM Machine has been used in Kurukshetra and the money was withdrawn at Kurukshetra and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection, lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure C-X, photocopy of passbook as Annexure C-1 and C-2, copy of letter dated 08.10.2011, 14.11.2011, 28.12.2011 and 18.04.2012 as Annexure C-3 to C-9 and photocopy of newspaper cutting as Annexure C-10, photocopy of letter dated 18.09.2012 as Annexure C-11 and C-12, photocopy of letter dated 27.10.2012, 01.10.2012 issued by PNB Bank as Annexure C-13 and C-14, photocopy of complaint lodged with grievance cell as Annexure C-15, photocopy of application dated 29.11.2012 as Annexure C-16, copy of rejoinder as Annexure C-17, photocopy of written arguments as Annexure C-18, photocopy of postal receipt and courier receipts as Annexure C-19 and C-20, photocopy of letter dated 15.12.2011 issued by PNB as Annexure C-21, photocopy of grievance cell as Annexure C-22, photocopy of postal receipt and courier receipts as Annexure C-23 to C-25, photocopy of letter dated 27.10.2012, 26.06.2012 along with some miscellaneous letters/instructions as (Annexure C-26 to C-34) and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri MPS Chauhan, Manager PNB Bank as Annexure RW/A, photocopy of letter dated 15.12.2011 as Annexure R-1, photocopy of letter dated 26.06.2012 as Annexure R-2, photocopy of letter dated 27.10.2012 as Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings, documents placed on file.

6.                     It is not disputed that complainant was/is  having a saving account No. 3701000100218919 in PNB Model Town, Branch Yamuna Nagar against which ATM card has been issued by the OP Bank.

7.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that he, along with his wife, went to the ATM Retgal Branch of PNB Kurukshetra on 16.09.2011 at about 05.15 pm to withdraw the amount of Rs.15000/- but the said amount was not disbursed to the complainant whereas the said amount was debited from his account, upon which, he visited the manager of the said bank Mr. Bora and complaint regarding this illegally debit of amount of Rs.15000/-  and requested to show CCTV and to provide the copy of CCTV footage for the said period i.e. from 05.00 pm to 07.00 pm  on 16.09.2011. But the manager of the OP Bank has neither provided the same nor cooperated the complainant (Annexure C-3 to C-9)  are the applications given by the complainant for CCTV Camera investigation and for providing Video footage, but no reply was given by the Bank. Why Video Footage was not provided by the OP Bank despite so many requests made by the complainant. Although the Bank has taken plea that transaction was successfully make as in the CCTV Footage, complainant has himself handed over the ATM card to third person who is operating the ATM card of the complainant but at the same time the OPs Bank has totally failed to place on file any JP Log print or any account statement of that Branch showing that no excess amount found in the ATM machine. The OPs bank has only placed on file letter dated 15.12.2011 in which it has been stated that the authority have advise that camera footage should be shown to the customer screen on your computer only. Meaning thereby that OPs Bank has not provided the copy of footage to the complainant and further the OPs Bank has placed on file letter dated 26.06.2012 and 27.10.2012 (Annexure R-2/R-3) in which it has been mentioned that “on your demand we have shown the clip of CCTV between 5.00pm to 6.00pm on 20.12.2011  for your satisfaction. While viewing the CCTV recording it reveals that you have handed over your ATM Card to third person who was operating your ATM card. We feel that you are now satisfied and there is no fault on the part of the OP Bank” From the reading of these letters, it is also clear that no copy of footage or any JP Log book or transaction print was provided to the complainant despite so many requests made by the complainant oral as well as documentary which is duly evident from the various letters placed on file (Annexure C-3 to C-9) which constitutes the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the same view has been held in case titled as “State Bank of India through its Chief Manager Vs. Sansar Chand Kapoor and Another, 2015(1) CPR 797 (NC) wherein it has been held that: -

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15,17,19 and 21- Banking – ATM card-Fraudulent withdrawal from account – District Forum directed petitioner bank to refund amount of Rs.10,000/- to complainant along with 9% interest, Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation- No cash from account of complainant could have been withdrawn without use of ATM Card which petitioner Bank had issued to him along with use of pin which bank had provided to him- However, petitioner bank was deficient in rendering services to complainant by not making available a copy of CCTV footage to him- Order of District Forum  and State Commission to the extent petitioner bank has been directed to refund amount of Rs.10,000/- to complainant along with interest set aside- However, order to the extent it awards compensation and cost of litigation to complainant upheld.

 

8.                     On the other angle also why the complainant shall unnecessarily level allegations against the OPs and at the same time drag himself into the litigation until and unless he has some bonafide reason to do so. It is a fact to be noted that first of all complainant went to the ATM of OP No.2 installed at Retgal Branch, Kurukshetra, and gave a command in the ATM machine but the machine did not disburse the amount of Rs.15000/-. As per case of the complainant, that amount was not withdrawn. It is also to be noticed that complainant went to another ATM adjacent circular branch of PNB Kurukshetra and could draw only Rs.10,000/- from account i.e. at this time the transaction become successful. It was for the bank to investigate to see as to what was the nexus between these two attempts of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- and there was every possibility of mechanical lapse even otherwise the video footage of previous ATM mentioned above was very much essential for decision of the present complaint. It may be that there some unauthorized third person by foul play has unauthorisedly withdrawn the amount of Rs.15000/- of first time. Bank has not cared to look into this matter and the complainant was left to face the fate. An ordinary person cannot do more than that, he can move only written complaint to the bank as well as higher authority and the same has been done in the present complaint by the complainant. It was the duty of the OPs Bank to satisfy the complainant as he was account holder of the OP Bank and paying the service charges whatsoever to the OPs Bank against the facility of ATM Card etc. The OPs Bank who are in Banking business since long and earning profit out of it are liable to make good his loss. The case law referred by the counsel for the OPs titled as “State Bank of India Vs. KK Bhalla, II(2011) CPJ, 106 (NC), State Bank of  India Vs. Om Parkash Saini, I(2013) CPJ 749 (NC) is not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the facts of the case titled as “State Bank of India through its Chief Manager Vs. Sansar Chand Kapoor and Another, 2015(1) CPR 797 (NC) (Supra) referred by the counsel for the complainant are fully applicable to the facts of the present complaint.

9.                     Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.1 and 2 Bank to pay Rs.15000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.3000/- for his harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Complaint qua the OP No.3 to 5 is hereby dismissed as no case is made out against them. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:

Dated: 24.07.2017

 

		(ASHOK KUMAR GARG) PRESIDENT,DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.
(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND) MEMBER	(S.C.SHARMA) MEMBER