Haryana

Karnal

490/2011

Angrej Singh S/o Gurbachan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

D.P. Raman

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.490 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.: 12.08.2011

                                                          Date of decision:15 .3.2016

 

Angrej Singh son of Sh.Gurbachan Singh resident of village Sangroli district Kaithal now at present resident of house no.647 Sector 5, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Manager, HDFC Bank, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

2.The Manager, Charge Bank Unit Direct Banking Operation, 2^nd Floor, I Think Techno Part Kunjpur-marge (E)Kanjur Marge East Mumbai 400042.

3.The Manager, HDFC  Bank village Dand, Kaithal Kuruksheta Road, Opposite New Grain Market, Dand District Kaithal.

4.Union Bank of India, Ambedkar Chowk, Karnal through its Manager, Karnal.

.

                                                                         ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.D.P.Raman Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

                   Sh. Parveen Mann Advocate for the Opposite Party no.4.

 

ORDER:

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was having savings account No.1467000005259 with Opposite Party no.3  and ATM  card No.4213401003800665 was issued to him. He made transaction on 5.4.2010 for withdrawal of amount of Rs.5000/- through the ATM of Opposite Party no.4, but the transaction was not successful. However, the  amount was debited in his account. When the amount was  retracted by the ATM of Opposite Party no.4, immediately the matter was reported to Mr.Navjot Goyal of Opposite Party  no.1. Mr.Navjot Goyal made written complaint to the Manager of Opposite Party no.4 . On that, Manager of Opposite Party no.4 informed Navjoy Goyal on telephone that cash was lying with the Opposite Party no.4. However, the coplainant could not get the retractted amount of Rs.5000/- in his account despite making written complaints to the Opposite Parties. The amount was not paid to the complainant despite service of legal notice upon the Opposite Parties. Thus, there was deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Parties,  due to which he suffered mental harassment and humiliation apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 filedb joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has supressed the material facts from this Forum; that the complaint is time barred; that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant.

 

                    On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant operated the ATM  being run and maintained by the Union Bank of India on 5.4.2010 against  transaction bearing referecne no. NFS83860  and as per his version, the transaction was unsuccessful  one and no amount under the transaction  to the tune of Rs.5000/- came out through the mouth of the ATM. The information of the transaction being unsuccessful was provided to Opposite Party no.4. Thereafter, the Opposite Party no.4 intimated that the transaction was successful therefore, lby electronic system account of the complainant was debited to the extent of Rs.5000/-. Information of transaction being unsuccessful was given to Opposite Party no.4 by the complainant as well by the  Opposite Parties no.1 to 3. Lateron, it was revealed by the  Opposite Party no.4 that transaction was unsuccessful and retracted amount of Rs.5000/- was lying with it and the same would be credited to the Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 for crediting the same in the account of the complainant. However, no account has been credited by the Opposite Party no.4.Thus, there was no deficiency in services on th epart of Opposite Parties no.1 to 4.

 

3.                 The Opposite Party no.4 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant.Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

 

                   On meirts, it has been pleaded that the amount of Rs.5000/- was disbursed by the Opposite Party no.4 to HDFC Bank on 8.4.2010 and the coplainant was also informed about that fact orally as well as by way of reply to the legal notice. In this way, there was no deficiency in vservices on th epart of the Opposite Party no.4.

 

4.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 have been tendered.

 

5.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties, affidavit of Sh.Mahinder Rana Manager, HDFC Bank Kunjpura road Karnal Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Sh.S.S.Dhania Manager of Opposite Party no.4 Ex.OP4 and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/E have been tendered.

 

6.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

7.                 As per pleadings of the parties, the complainant had used the ATM of Opposite Party no.4 on 5.4.2010 for withdrawal of  amount of Rs.5000/- but the amount had not come out of the mouth of the ATM. However, in the record the transaction was shown as successful and an amount of Rs.5000/- was debited in the account of the complainant  maintained with the Opposite Party no.3. He complained to the Opposite Parties . Initially, Opposite Party no.4 told that the transaction was successful, but lateron informed that transaction was not successful and the amount of Rs.5000/- was ciredted to the Opposite Party no.3 on 8.4.2010. However, the Opposite Parties  no.1 to 3 in their written statement  pleaded that the said amount was never credited into their account by Opposite Party no.4.

 

8.                               Admittedly, the complainant  has not received the said amount by cash or by crediting the same in his account. Thus, the dispute is  between the Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 on one  hand and Opposite Party no.4 on the other hand, because the Opposite Parties no.1 to 3  have submitted that the amount was never credited by Opposite Party no.4 in their account, whereas the Opposite Party no.4 asserted that the amount was credited to the account of Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 on 8.4.2010.The account ledger report of   Opposite Party no.4 for 8.4.2010 is also lying on the file, according to which the amountof Rs.5000/- was debited in reference to TX05APRCBO .  It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.4 that the amount was retracted on 8.4.2010, therefore, credited to the account of Opposite Parties no.1 to 3. The documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/D show that Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 had not received the amount which was allegedly credited to their account by Opposite Party no.4.

 

9.                 The complainant cannot be made to suffer on account of any lapse or miscommunication between the Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 and Opposite Party no.4  when the transaction was found unsuccessful, the complainant  became entitled to get credited the said amount of Rs.5000/- in his account. However, due to dispute between Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 and Opposite Party no.4, the amount  of the complaiannt could not be credited to his account.  In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the present complaint is accepted and the Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 are directed to credit the amount of Rs.5000/- in the account of the complainant, alongwith savings bank rate interest from 5.4.2010 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for  compensation and the litigation expenses.  However, the Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 would remain entitled to recover the said amounts from the Opposite Party no.4, if the amount was not deposited in their account by the Oppoiste Party no.4. The Opposite Parties  no.1 to 3 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compllaince.

 

Announced
dated:15 .03.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.D.P.Raman Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

                   Sh. Parveen Mann Advocate for the Opposite Party no.4.

 

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

 

 

Announced
dated:15 .03.2016.

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.