Haryana

StateCommission

A/211/2017

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

GULSHAN RAI - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH RAWAL

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                  First Appeal No.211 of 2017

Date of Institution: 28.02.2017                                                              Date of Decision: 21.11.2017

 

 

Punjab National Bank, DAV College Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Gulshan Rai S/o Late Sh.gian Chand, aged 67 years, R/o H.No.175, Palika Vihar, Ambala City.
2. State Bank of India, The Mall, Ambala Cantt. Through its Chief Manager.

                                      …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Ashish Rawal, Advocate counsel for appellant.

Shri S.S.Mor, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Summender Bhadran, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

  

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by the complainant that on 27.01.2011 he used ATM of appellant-O.P.No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank to withdraw Rs.10,000/-.  Though the attempt was unsuccessful, but a TXN ticket No.1602 shown withdrawal of that amount. He immediately contacted office incharge of O.P.No.2, but, he refused to entertain his complaint and asked him to contact O.P.No.1 i.e. State Bank of India. He immediately lodged complaint on that very date with State Bank of India to correct his account, but, nothing was done.  The act and conduct of O.Ps. was against the directions of RBI, so they be directed not only to refund that amount, but, also to pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day w.e.f. 27.01.2011 and litigation expenses etc.

2.      Only O.P.No.1 filed reply because O.P.No.2 was proceeded against ex parte before learned District Forum on 11.03.2013 when nobody appeared despite service.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that matter was vigorously taken up with O.P.No.2 after receipt of complaint. When the amount was received from appellant-O.P.No.2 the same was credited in their account on 28.03.2013. There was no deficiency in service on it’s part.  The payment could not be made in time because delay was caused by appellant in investigating this matter.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.10.2016 and directed as under:-

“(i)     To pay the compensation of Rs.100/- per day to the complainant after excluding 7 working days from 21.01.2011 till 28.03.2013 when the payment was credited in the account of the complainant.

(ii)      Cost is assessed to Rs.2000/- to be paid by O.P.No.2 to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom O.P.No.2 has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that instructions contained in letter dated 27.05.2011 Annexure C-5 were not binding upon it.  As per these instructions the issuing bank is to deal with complaint within seven days as mentioned therein.  There is no evidence on the file showing that when complaint was brought to it’s notice. Application Ex.C-3 was moved on 27.01.2011 before O.P.No.1. So that bank is liable to pay the compensation, if any.

7.      These arguments are of no avail. Complainant specifically alleged in para No.4 of the complaint that he brought the fact of non delivery of cash to the notice of official incharge of O.P.No.2, but, he refused to entertain the same and thereafter he lodged compliant with O.P.No.1.  O.P.No.1 has also alleged in reply that moment the complaint dated 27.01.2011 was submitted, the matter was rigorously taken up with the appellant-O.P.No.2 to refund the amount. These averments are also corroborated by way of affidavit which have gone unrebutted.  In the absence of any pleadings or evidence it cannot be presumed that this matter was not brought to the notice of O.P.No.2.  Simple averments in appeal is no ground to presume that this fact was not to it’s notice. Even otherwise this matter is to be resolved by the banks among themselves. Complainant cannot be penalized for the fault on the part of O.Ps.  He cannot be asked to run from pillar  to post again for redressal of his grievances.  Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.

 

November 21st, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.