ORDER

11.12.2024

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant credits Rs.10,000/- two times i.e. total Rs.20,000/- from ATM of PNB, Booth Code No.8061800 through ATM card no.4693756640006590 on 15.03.2015. It is stated that complainant got four SMS 11.INR 10,000/- at 13:27.45, secondly INR 10022.47 at 13.27.48 SECII) thirdly INR 10,022.47 at 13.27.17 Sec.) fourthly INR Rs.40066/- (about) while the complainant got only Rs.20,000/- in two times.
2. It is stated that the complainant got registered in this regard FIR No.0698 at 18.08.2015, before it, the complainant informed the OP at once after getting SMS, vide complaint no. SR363626359 to Mo. No.01133667777 upon which 15 days time was demanded to take action and also instructed to get CCTV camera footage and an FIR in this police. It is further stated that except this, the complainant visited physically to the branch office of the OP, but the OP is failed to return his money  in his account due to which the complainant felt a lot of physical and mental pain.
3. It is stated that the complainant has done his best effort to get back his money, but till today the OP is failed to give the back the money of the complainant in his account of ICICI Bank. It is further stated that the OP is knowingly avoiding to give return the money of the complainant amount of Rs.20,066/- intentionally. It is stated that seeing no interest to return the amount of the complainant, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.01.2017 to the OP by his counsel through registered post and courier which were duly served to the OP, but the OP neither paid the amount of the complainant nor reply the legal notice, therefore, this complaint. It is stated that there is negligence on the part of the OP, due to which the complainant has suffered mentally and economically. It is further stated that the OPs intentionally and deliberately not credited the money of the complainant in his account.
4. Complainant is seeking directions against OP to pay Rs.1,20,066/- with interest 18% per annum with cost and litigation expenses and any other which deems fit and proper.
5. OP1 filed detailed WS. It is stated that the complaint against the OP1 is not maintainable as the complainant has not raised any grounds of deficiency against the OP1, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is stated that the instant complaint does not discloses any cause of action against the OP1. It is further stated that the as the disputed transaction as alleged by the complainant have not been carried out from the ATM of the OP1, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the OP1. It is stated that the complaint against the OP1 is not maintainable as the complainant has not raised any grounds of deficiency against the OP1, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that ATM transactions are independent transactions through ATM card and PIN. It is further stated that the as the ATM card and its PIN is in custody of the customer, therefore, liability of the bank vis-à-vis any disputed transaction does not arise.
7. It is stated that under any ATM transaction the customer is wholly liable and responsible for any transaction entered through its ATM card. It is further stated that moreover the transaction entered through the complainant’s ATM card had been entered when admittedly the complainant had been in possession of the ATM card and PIN, therefore, liability of the bank does not arise. It is further stated that therefore complainant is making false allegations to make wrongful gain to himself and cause wrongful loss to the bank, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble Forum, and is trying to mislead this court in passing orders in his favour by distorting facts. It is further stated that the complainant had entered into a four transaction for Rs.10000/- each from the ATM of PNB, for which only PNB can respond, and PNB has not been made a party to the present proceedings. It is stated that as allegations of non-disbursal form ATM is there against OP, the records provided by the PNB, EJ Roll shows that the transactions have been successful. Therefore, the averment is false and frivolous and liable to be rejected.
8. It is stated that the complainant very well know the date and timing of the transactions and by filing the present complaint is trying to cheat the bank and commit forgery on the bank and is himself liable to be prosecuted accordingly. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost on the complainant under section 26 of the Act. It is stated that as per OP’s records on March 15, 2015 customer has done four cash withdrawal transactions, from Non ICICI ATM (PNB ATM), transaction numbers being 0185, 0184, 0179 and 0175 respectively for Rs.10000/- each. It is further stated that on receipt of his initial complaint to the bank, OP had made a claim on behalf of customer to the acquiring bank (PNB) for TXN 0179 and 0175 on April 17, 2015 and for TXN 0184 and 0185 on April 8, 2015 for Rs.10000/- each. It is stated that however acquiring bank (PNB) had declined the claim on April 22, 2015 and April 11, 2015 respectively.
9. It is stated that on receipt of legal notice from the complainant in January, 2017, the OP had again approached the acquiring bank (PNB) towards all the disputed transactions to either reverse the funds or provide all supporting documents. It is further stated that PNB has however not yet replied on the same till date. It is stated that on receipt of this Consumer Court complaint, the OP had once again approached acquiring bank (PNB) towards all the disputed transactions to either reverse the funds or provide all supporting documents or reverse the funds. It is stated that yet again the PNB has failed to provide any document or reply to the same. It is stated that moreover the complainant has lodged an FIR with the concerned police station bearing no. 40/15, hence there is allegation of fraud and cheating. It is further stated that therefore, the jurisdiction of this court is barred under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that the law in this regard has been settled by the Hon’ble National Commission.
10. It is stated that on raising of the dispute the complainant was informed of the same and accordingly his request for reversal of disputed amount was rejected. It is further stated that therefore, the averments are false and frivolous and liable to be rejected. It is further stated that the complainant has failed to show even an iota of deficiency or negligence on the part of OP1. It is stated that complainant has referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravneet Singh Bagga, therefore, the present case should be dismissed.
11. It is stated that the complainant is estopped by his own act and misconduct. It is further stated that on the side complainant is alleging that the OP1 are guilty of deficient service yet he has failed to prove the same and has documents annexed to not show that there has been any wrong done to the complainant. It is stated that at the outset OP deny each and every fact and averment in the instant complaint until and unless the same has been specifically admitted. It is further stated that the complainant has failed to show even an iota of deficiency on the part of OP, therefore, this complaint is fit for outright dismissal.
12. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP1.
13. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
14. OP2 filed WS and taken preliminary submissions that the complainant is customer of ICICI bank branch office, Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi and not the customer of Punjab National Bank, Branch office Azadpur. It is further stated that there is no deficiency in rendering service on the part of OP (PNB). It is stated that there is no privity of contract with customer (i.e. complainant) of ICICI Bank with OP2 bank (PNB).
15. It is stated that the case of the complainant is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation as he filed the present case after two years from the date of incident, therefore, his complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
16. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP2 and reiterated contents of preliminary submissions. It is stated that complainant operated his card no. 4693756640006590 on 15.03.2015 four times. It is further stated that as at 12:47 pm withdrawn Rs.10,000/- at 12:50 pm withdrawn Rs.10,000/- at 13:01 pm withdrawn Rs.10,000/- and last at 13:03 pm withdrawn Rs.10,000/-, in total Rs.40,000/- were withdrawn. It is stated that PNB bank does not have any knowledge that complainant got registered any FIR and police did not approach the PNB in respect of complaint of complainant. It is further stated that as per copy of Ej copy/JP log record shows that complainant received full amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is stated that complainant is customer of ICICI Bank and should have claimed money from ICICI bank only. It is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of PNB, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP2 and denied all the allegations made in the complaint and reiterated contents of complaint.
18. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant relied on copy of legal notice Ex.CW1/1, copy of postal receipt Ex.CW1/2, copy of courier receipt and delivery Ex.CW1/3 (colly), copy of FIR Ex.CW1/4, copy of complaint Ex.CW1/4, copy of passbook of deponent Ex.CW1/5 and copy of adhar card of deponent Ex.CW1/6.
19. OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Jarrar Rizvi and reiterated contents of WS. OP1 relied on copy of EJ Roll Annexure 1.
20. OP2 filed evidence by way Vishal Prakash Asthana Chief Manager and reiterated contents of WS. OP2 relied on copy of report dated 15.03.2015 Ex.OP2/1 and copy of judgment of Raghabendra Nath  Sen & Anr Vs. Punjab National Bank I (2015) CPJ 254 (NC) Ex. OP2/2.
21. Written arguments filed by OP1 as well as by OP2. As per record no written arguments filed by complainant.
22. We have heard Sh. Manish Kumar Dixit counsel for complainant and Sh. Jai Bhagwan Singh counsel for OP2. Neither AR nor counsel for OP1 addressed the arguments, however, we have gone through the written arguments filed by OP1.
23. Admittedly, as per the averments made in the complaint the complainant visited ATM of OP2 Bank and withdraw sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 18.03.2015. However, as per the statement of account he withdrew a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- through ATM from his bank account. The complainant has alleged that he had withdrawn only Rs. 20,000/- and remaining transaction of Rs. 20,000/- had not been under gone by him and he had never received Rs. 20,000/- only.
24. We have gone through the record and found that against the unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- complainant lodged the FIR on 18.08.2015 where as the transaction was carried out on 18.03.2015. The complainant has annexed with his complaint the copy of the complaint in respect to the unauthorized withdrawal to OP1 Bank on 14.07.2015. After issuing the notice both the OPs contested the complaint and placed on record the J.P Log report which clearly established that the transaction was successful one and was carried out on 15.03.2015 for Rs. 10,000/- each at 12:47 PM, 12:50 PM, 13:01 PM and 13:03 PM. The entire transaction history show that the withdrawal was carried out from the same ATM card and at the same time and all the transaction are successful one. Moreover, the complainant approach OP Bank after 4 months of the incident and lodged the F.I.R after 5 months of the incident and the complainant had never requested OP1 bank to  blocked the ATM card in question and is remained with him till today. It is worthwhile to mention here that no further unauthorized transaction was carried out though the ATM in question, hence, we are of the considered view that complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
25. We therefore, find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
26. File be consigned to record room.
27. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  11.12.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER