Haryana

StateCommission

A/1391/2017

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARISH KUMAR GERA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SURESH PAUL VERMA

25 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                First Appeal No.1379 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 15.11.2017

Date of Decision:25.02.2019

 

1.      Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. Sampla Distt. Rohtak.

2.      Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Bahadurgarh Distt. Jhajjar.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

1.      Harish Kumar Gera s/o Sh. Sh. Bhagwan Dass Gera, R/o H.No.305/10, near National School, Amargarh Gamri, Katithal.

2.      Chief Manager,  Punjab National Bank, Karnal road, Kaithal.

3.      Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chatha Complex, Pipli road, Near Saffron Hotel, Kurukshetra.

4.      Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region No.1,  Regional Business office, SCO 101-108, Sector  17-B, Chandigarh (Having control SBI Jain Public School ATM, Chandigarh).

                                                                   .….Proforma Respondents

 

F.A. No.1391 of 2017

Date of institution:-16.11.2017

Date of Decision:- 25.02.2019

 

1.      Mr. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Karnal Road, Katithal.

2.      Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Catha Complex, Pipli Road, Near Saffron Hotel, Kurukshetra.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Harish Kumar Gera s/o Sh. Sh.Bhagwan Dass Gera, R/o H.No.305/10, near National School, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal.

…..Contesting Respondent

2.      Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Sampla Distt. Rohtak.

3.      Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Bahadurgarh.

4.      Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region No.1, Regional Business Office, SCO 101-108, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh (having control SBI Jain Public School ATM, Chandigarh).

…..Proforma respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.S.P.Verma, Advocate for the appellant in appeal No.1391 of 2017 and respondent No.2 and 3 in appeal No1379 of 2017..

                   Mr.Ketan Antil, Advocate for the respondent No.1 in both the appeals.

Mr.B.B.Bagga, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in appeal No.1391 of 2017 and appellant in appeal No.1379 of 2017.

Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.4 in both the appeals.

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Delay in filing the appeal bearing No.1379 of 2017 is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the complainant was maintaining saving account with the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Punjab National Bank and he has also availed ATM facility.   On 01.03.2016,  the amount of Rs.35,420/- has been shown got withdrawn illegally and fraudulently through ATM.   He made complaints in writing on 01.03.2016, 02.03.2016 to O.P.No.1  and also lodged FIR against unknown person in PS Civil Line, Kaithal.  The amount of Rs.35,420/- was illegally deducted by the O.Ps.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P Nos.1 and 2-Punjab National bank by filing its written reply before the District Forum, in which, O.P.Nos.1 and 2 alleged that the amount of Rs.35,420/- was withdrawn by using the ATM card and its pin, which was with the complainant.  As per record, the disputed amount was withdrawn through ATM. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos.1 and 2.

4.      O.P.Nos.3 and 4 filed separate reply and alleged that complainant was account holder of O.P.No.1 and he was in possession of ATM alongwith password issued by the bank.  It was not possible to withdraw the cash from ATM without using ATM alongwith password.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.Nos.3 and 4.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.01.2018.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.Nos.1 and 2 as well as O.P.Nos.3 and 4 have preferred the aforesaid appeals.

7.      The argument have been advanced by Mr.S.P.Verma, Advocate for the appellant in appeal No.1391 of 2017 and respondent No.2 and 3 in appeal No1379 of 2017 as well as       Mr.Ketan Antil, Advocate for the respondent No.1 in both the appeals, Mr.B.B.Bagga, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in appeal No.1391 of 2017 and appellant in appeal No.1379 of 2017 and Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.4 in both the appeals. With their kind assistance the entire records of the appeal as well as District Forum record had been properly perused and examined.

8.      As per the admitted facts, the complainant was maintaining saving bank account at Branch Office of O.P.No.1-Punjab National Bank, Karnal road, Kaithal.  He was also issued ATM card. The ATM card was utilized by the complainant on two different occasions, firstly the ATM branch of HDFC Bank Bahadurgarh and second time ATM branch  of HDFC Bank, Sampla, Distt. Rohtak-O.P.No.3.  The account has also been debited in the record of  Punjab National Bank, Kaithal.  However, the allegations has been levelled that inspite of the fact that ATM was used unauthorizedly, it was caused a monetary loss to the extent of Rs. 35420/- to the complainant, which has to be compensated by the Punjab National Bank, Kaithal.

9.      This contention is of no consequence and stands rejected for the reasons that the account holder bank cannot be held responsible, if the ATM card has been used at two different ATM  branches in different phases.  When the FIR has been registered, it was for the investigating agency to conclude the incriminating evidence including CCTV footage etc., so that the problem have been easily solved and the defaulter have been brought to the books, which has not been done in the present case.  When there is no incriminating evidence establishing any negligence on the part of the Punjab National Bank, Kaithal, in that eventuality, no order could be passed against O.Ps. directing to compensate the complainant in any manner. 

10.    The learned District Forum, Kaithal had grossly and manifestly ordered, while accepting the complaint and fixed the responsibility upon the O.ps. to compensate the complainant for the unauthorized withdrawal of the amount by way of using the ATM, which was issued to the complainant.  Hence the impugned order dated 03.10.2017 stands set aside for all intents and purposes and the complaint stands dismissed and both the appeals are allowed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  and Rs.19,360/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal  bearing Nos.1379 of 2017  and  F.A. No.1391 of 2017 respectively be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.    The original judgement be attached with appeal No.1379 of 2017 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.1391 of 2017.

 

February 25th, 2019                                                Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                                                    Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench             

S.K.