Haryana

StateCommission

A/162/2018

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARBHAJAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

NAREN PRATAP SINGH

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.162 of 2018

  Date of Instituion:09.04.2018

                Date of order:28.04.2023

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL No.162 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Union Bank of India, Court Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager Mr. C.K. Babu, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.

…..Appellant

VERSUS

1.      Harbhajan Singh, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Sh.Mehar Singh , R/o House No.1269/1, Ward No.12, Badshahi Bagh Colony, Ambala City.

2.      State Bank of India, Court Road, Ambala City, through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Nitin Sood, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   None for the respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

PER: S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

JUDGMENT

 

Feeling aggrieved of the order passed by learned District Commission, Ambala of 21.12.2017 Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Court Road Ambala City has come into first appeal and facts as evolve from the record goes like that the complainant was having saving bank account with the opposite party (OP) No.1 -appellant bank branch alongwith ATM facility.  On 17.06.2015, the complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- from ATM of OP No.2 at 6.30 p.m and at the time of withdrawal transaction the balance was remaining shown as Rs.95187.78/-  instead of Rs.1,05,187.78/-. He came to know his that transaction withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was shown twice for the said date and time. Immediately thereafter he moved an application dated 17.06.2015 followed by other written requests dated 14.07.2015, 09.08.2015  to OP No.1  and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-,  being deducted authorisedly from his account but, to no avail. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint.

2.      Notice was issued to the Ops, who appeared and filed separate written statements.  OP No.1 in its reply submitted that complainant concealed the true and material facts from District Commissions that on 17.06.2015 he withdrew Rs.10,000/- at 6.14 p.m. and thereafter again withdrew another Rs.10,000- at 6.30 p.m. in second withdrawal transaction from the same  ATM installed  and maintained by OP No.2.   The complainant was having a balance of Rs.1,15,287.79 in all and after  undergoing two withdrawal transactions of Rs.10,000/- each in quick succession, the balance come to be Rs.95,187/-.   Thus the complainant was not entitled for refund of Rs.10,000/-.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      OP NO.2 in its reply submitted that on 17.06.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant had attempted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from ATM of answering OP, but as the transaction was not successful so immediately reverse entry of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter the complainant had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- from the same ATM successfully.  Infact complainant never contacted the answering OP2 as alleged in the complaint rather there was no necessity to contact the answering OP because the amount has already been credited in the account of complainant immediately after the transanction vide reverse entry. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The District Commission after considering entire material available on record passed the order dated 21.12.2017, whereby it held as under:-

“Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances it is established on the case file that the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant, therefore, present complaint deserves acceptance. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- and the Ops are directed to comply with the following directions within a period of thirty days from the communication of this order:-

(i)      To pay Rs.10,000/- (being unsuccessful transaction) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

(ii)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment etc.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. Order be complied with jointly and severally. If the above directions are not complied with within stipulated period of thirty days then the complainant is at liberty to take legal action against the Ops under section 27 of C.P.Act.”

5.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, Ambala, the OP No.1-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6.      We have gone through the complaint, written statement and documents submitted by the parties and considered the submissions of  the parties.  Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant withdrew Rs.10,000/- twice firstly at 6.14 p.m. and for second time at 6.30 p.m. from the ATM of respondent No.2. When the complainant got the statement of account he found that transaction of Rs.10,000/- has been shown twice on the said date i.e. 17.06.2015. but the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not disbursed but on second occasion he got the money.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that at the time of using the ATM for the first time, the balance was Rs.1,15,187.79 in his account but after withdrawal of Rs.10,000, the balance amount was shown as Rs.95187.79/-.   However as we see that there was none on behalf of respondent No.2 State Bank of India court road Ambala city.

9.      It is true that complainant was having saving account with appellant/opposite party No.1 and also using the ATM facility.  It is relevant to mention here that OP No.2 in its written statement submitted that  the transaction made at 6.30 at RR No.6504 on 17.06.2015 was unsuccessful due to some technical reason and therefore the entry of deduction of the amount of Rs.10,000/- was reversed immediately as credit entry in the account of the complainant. However this bank has not placed on record CCTV footage to show as to what had happened or whether the transanctions were made or not. It was the duty of the banker to have provided the  CCTV footage of the ATM to the District Commission. That being so the learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. Hence, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal  stands dismissed on merits.

10.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

Dated: 28.04.2023                                   (S.P.Sood)

                                                                   Judicial member

 

S.K.(Pvt. Secy)