Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/810/2011

M/S Rism India Group - Complainant(s)

Versus

I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Godiyan

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                   Complaint No. 810 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 03.08.2011

                                                                                    Date of Decision:12.08.2016

M/s Rism India Group, 12148, Partap Nagar, Street No.1, Backside Sangeet Cinema, dholewal, Ludhiana (Punjab) through its Proprietor Kulvinder Singh aged about 42 years son of late Shri Karnail Singh resident of village Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                             ..Complainant

                           Versus

 

I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited having its Branch Near J.K. Residency Hotel, Model Town, Gobindpura Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                                                                                            ..Respondent.

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

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

 

Present: Sh. Vijay Singh Godian, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. M.L.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

 

ORDER   

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant is having bank account bearing No.631905010707 with the facility of ATM Card with the respondent Bank (hereinafter referred as OP Bank) having its Branch at Ludhiana. On 08.01.2008, the complainant visited Yamuna Nagar and was in need of Rs. 20,000/- and for that purpose he used the outlet of the ATM of OP Bank for withdrawing the amount through ATM card but the ATM machine deducted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the bank account of the complainant whereas no amount was disbursed to the complainant from the ATM machine.  After that complainant visited the Branch Manager of the OP Bank who assured to enquire into the matter from the Higher Authority regarding fault of machine of the ATM outlet. After waiting for sufficient time, the complainant also gave written application to OP Bank on 17.01.2008 but no action has been taken by the OP Bank. So, the complainant is victim in the hands of the OP Bank. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Op Bank and the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest and compensation and litigation expenses from the Op Bank. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint is barred by limitation as the present complaint has not been filed within a period of 2 years; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint because the complainant M/s Rism India Group is having their business at Ludhiana and their account is with ICICI Bank Ludhiana and no cause of action arisen in the jurisdiction of this Forum;  complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties; complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct; complaint is also not maintainable as the complainant has not produced any proof that Kulvinder Singh is proprietor of the said firm and the said firm is partnership firm and on merit it has been specifically denied that complainant visited the ATM at Yamuna Nagar as alleged but the complainant never made any such complaint to the OP Bank. OP Bank is not liable in any manner whatsoever because it is not possible that without taking the money from the ATM machine, Rs. 20,000/- is shown as withdrawn, if it was so then why the complainant had not lodged any protest with the toll free number of the OP Bank immediately. Further, it has been mentioned that complainant has cooked a false story because as soon as amount is withdrawn, the SMs is sent to the customer immediately. The present complaint has been filed after a gap of three years from the date of alleged withdrawal i.e. 08.01.2008. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CA and documents such as certified copy of statement and order of withdrawal of the complaint bearing No. CC 103 of 2008 titled as Kulvinder Singh Vs. ICICI Bank as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of news paper as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of ATM receipts as Annexure C-3 to C-6, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 17.01.2008 as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of registration of firm under Punjab Vat Act as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of ration card as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of previous complaint as Annexure C-11, Photo copy of previous written statement as Annexure C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vikas Branch Manager as Annexure RA and documents such as photo copy of account statement as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of news as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of terms and conditions of ATM debit card as Annexure R-3 and R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Bank.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the Op Bank and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that on 08.01.2008, he visited the outlet of the Op Bank at Yamuna Nagar for withdrawing the amount of Rs. 20,000/- through his ATM card and swapped his ATM Card for the same but the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was not disbursed to the complainant. In this regard, complainant gave written application to the Op Bank on 17.01.2008 but till date no action has been taken by the Op Bank and draw our attention towards the ATM receipts Annexure C-3 to C-6 and application dated 17.01.2008 Annexure C-7 and further referred the account statement w.e.f. 01.08.2008 to 31.01.2008 Annexure C-10.  Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that it is duly evident from account statement (Annexure C-10) that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been debited from the account of the complainant on 08.01.2008 and lastly referred the case law titled as State Bank of Patiala Versus Sumit Kumar & Another, IV (2013) CPJ page 249 (NC) and State Bank of India Versus Shankar Parshad Yadav and others, 2012(2) CLT page 338 and lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Bank hotly argued at length that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum as the transactions remained successful and draw our attention towards the account statement Annexure C-10 from which it is duly evident that complainant used his ATM card for 4 times on the same day i.e. on 08.01.2008 and firstly he withdraw Rs. 20,000/- and after that he withdraw an amount of Rs. 6500/- from the account. So, the version of the complainant is totally false and requested for dismissal of the complaint and referred the case law titled as State Bank of India vs. Mangilal Mangal and another, Revision Petition No. 3044 of 2013 decided on 11.04.2016, and further referred the case law titled as State Bank of India Vs. Om Parkash Saini I (2013) CPJ 749 (NC) wherein it has been held that Banking and Financial Institution Services- Withdrawal from ATM-Defect in machine alleged-Amount could not be withdrawn-Slip showing deduction from account-Refund of amount denied- Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence, revision. Camera is fixed on the face of user and not on the keys of ATM and delivery window-Non supply of video footage had no bearing on claim of complainant- No other person complained for not receiving money on that day-It cannot be presumed that complainant did not receive Rs.5,000/- from ATM machine-Impugned order set aside.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the documents placed on file, it is clearly evident that the complainant swapped his ATM card four times on 08.01.2008 for withdrawing the amount from the account of M/s Rism India Group Ludhiana. Firstly, the complainant swapped his ATM card for withdrawing Rs. 20,000/- as the complainant was aware about the balance in the account of Rism India Group as Rs. 26,766.04 and this transaction was successful. After that complainant again swapped ATM card for withdrawing the amount of Rs. 6500/- as he was having knowledge that now balance remains as Rs. 6766/- in the account. However, this transaction was reversed due to some reason best known to the complainant but again complainant swapped his ATM card for withdrawing the same amount i.e. Rs. 6500/- and this transaction was successful but the complainant is totally silent for these facts and has not disclosed in his complaint that on 08.01.2008 he swapped his ATM Card four times. When an amount of Rs. 6500/- was successfully disbursed to the complainant then how it can be presumed that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was not disbursed to the complainant by the ATM Machine. Further, if the complainant was having any grievances then he might have informed to the OP Bank immediately but as per the version of the complainant himself mentioned in the complaint, he informed the Op Bank after a delay of 8-9 days i.e. on 17.01.2008 and no explanation has been given by the complainant on this account that why he did not inform the OP Bank immediately on toll free phone number or by visiting the local branch office of OP Bank. Even, the complainant has not placed on file any ATM slips to prove the transactions done due to reason known to him and he has only placed on file ATM slips showing statement prints Annexure C-3 to C-6 and has not placed on file the copy of ATM slips vide which the amount was disbursed or not to him. Further, the complainant has nowhere mentioned or alleged in his complaint that ATM machine of the OP Bank was not working properly whereas from the perusal of receipts Annexure C-3 to C-6 it is clearly evident that ATM Machine of the OP Bank was working properly.

10.                    From the other angle also, when the complainant could not succeed to get the amount of Rs. 20,000/- first time then why he again tried to get the amount of Rs. 6500/- from the same ATM Machine of the OP Bank. Normally, machine does not lie but man may do so. Moreover, there is nothing on the file to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank and the present complaint deserves dismissal.

11                    Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances and going through the citations referred by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the plea of the complainant is not tenable and law cited by the learned counsel for complaint is not disputed but not applicable to the facts of present case.  Hence, there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court:12.08.2016.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

                                                                       

                                                                                    (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                     MEMBER