Haryana

Kurukshetra

207/2018

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    207 of 2018.

                                                                   Date of institution:         01.10.2018.

                                                                   Date of decision: 25.07.2022

 

Sandeep Singh s/o Shri Mahinder Singh, r/o village Lukhi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The Manager, IDBI Bank, Opp. Krishna Dham, Railway Road, District Kurukshetra.
2. The Branch Manager, SBI Bank, Main branch, Railway Road, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Shekhar Thakur, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri K.K. Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Shri Rajan Chawla, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was having a bank account bearing No.0397104000054409 in OP No.1 bank and he has been issued ATM card for operating the said account by OP No.1. OP No.2 operating an ATM at Jhansa Chungi, District Kurukshetra. On 07.07.2018, at about 11:27 am, he approached the ATM of OP No.2 and made a ATM transaction of withdrawing Rs.10,000/- from such ATM, but after transaction, the said ATM machine displayed message of this ATM is temporarily out of service, but his account was wrongly debited for Rs.10,000/- and he received SMS in this regard on his mobile number. He without any delay registered a complaint upon customer care of OP No.1 vide complaint No.397/22874664 on same day i.e. 07.07.2018, who asked him that his account would be credited within seven days, but he has not received the said amount and after waiting 12 days, he registered 2^nd complaint on 20.7.2018 vide complaint No.829741 and after waiting 17 days more, he registered 3^rd complaint bearing No.856756 on 07.08.2018, but despite all, he did not receive the amount of Rs.10,000/-. He issued a legal notice dated 13.08.2018 upon OPs, but all in vain. As per RBI Circular No.RBI/2010/11/547 DPSS. PD. No.2632/02.10.002/2010-2011 regarding failure ATM transactions, the failure to re-credit the customer account within seven days from the receipt of complaint, shall entail payment to the customer @Rs.100/- per day by issuing bank. He made various requests to the OPs to redress his grievance, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement stated that the complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission. In fact, the complainant lodged a complaint on 09.7.2018 at 12:00:00 with customer care of IDBI Bank and according system raised dispute on 09.7.2018 itself at 05:03:28 and the claim was submitted to State Bank of India for reversal, which was rejected by it on 18.07.2018. Thereafter, the transaction was again represented by IDBI bank to SBI in Pre Arbitration in reply to second complaint of complainant on 20.07.2018 with TAT of 17 days i.e. 07.7.2018. However, on 07.8.2018 again SBI has rejected the claim on the ground that transaction (ATM transaction on 07.7.2018) was successful. As the transaction was reported to be successful by SBI, the amount claimed by complainant cannot be reversed/paid. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

5.                The OP No.2 in its written statement stated that the complainant operated the ATM of OP No.2 situated at Bhadarkali Mandir, Jhansa Chungi, Kurukshetra for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from his Saving Bank Account. The OP No.2 bank immediate take the action on the complaint of complainant and also got reported from outsource vendor to manage/monitor the case in ATMs of the OP No.2. The vendor given the report that on 07.6.2018 no excess cash was found against Txn No.7649 at SBI ATM ID BHNF000724013 located Bhadarkali Mandir, Jhansa Chungi, Kurukshetra. The transaction of machine and switch centre were also tallied with physical cash and the same was found correct with both centres. However, the E.J. log record of the ATM received from the switch centre also confirmed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn from the concerned ATM and the transaction is successful, the same was duly informed. However, there is no question of wrong debit for transaction dealt by the complainant on 07.7.2018 at about 11:27 from the ATM of OP No.2. If there is any wrong entry in the saving account of complainant for which the bank of complainant is responsible and liable. Hence, the OP No.2 bank is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the complaint against it.

6.                The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed his evidence.

7.                On the other hand, the OP No.1, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed its evidence. The OP No.2, in order to support its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A along with documents Ex.R2/1 & Ex.R2/5 and closed the same.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

9.                Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was having a bank account in OP No.1 bank and has ATM card for operating the same. On 07.07.2018, at about 11:27 am, the complainant approached the ATM of OP No.2 and made a ATM transaction of withdrawing Rs.10,000/-, but after transaction, the said ATM machine displayed message of this ATM is temporarily out of service, but his account was wrongly debited for Rs.10,000/- and he received SMS in this regard on his mobile number. He without any delay registered a complaint upon customer care of OP No.1 vide complaint No.397/22874664 on same day i.e. 07.07.2018 and thereafter 2^nd complaint on 20.7.2018 and 3^rd complaint on 07.08.2018, but despite all, he did not receive the amount of Rs.10,000/-. As per RBI Circular No.RBI/2010/11/547 DPSS. PD. No.2632/02.10.002/2010-2011 regarding failure ATM transactions, the failure to re-credit the customer account within seven days from the receipt of complaint, shall entail payment to the customer @Rs.100/- per day by issuing bank. To support his contention, he placed reliance upon case law titled Parveen Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr., First Appeal No.239/2016, Date of Decision 11.10.2017 (H.P. State Commission, Shimla).

10.              Learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the complainant lodged a complaint on 09.7.2018 at 12:00:00 with customer care of IDBI Bank and according system raised dispute on 09.7.2018 itself at 05:03:28 and the claim was submitted to State Bank of India for reversal, which was rejected by it on 18.7.2018. Thereafter, the transaction was again represented by IDBI bank to SBI in Pre Arbitration in reply to second complaint of complainant on 20.07.2018 with TAT of 17 days i.e. 07.7.2018. However, on 07.8.2018 again SBI has rejected the claim on the ground that transaction (ATM transaction on 07.7.2018) was successful. As the transaction was reported to be successful by SBI, the amount claimed by complainant cannot be reversed/paid.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the complainant operated the ATM of OP No.2 for the withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from his Saving Bank Account. The OP No.2 bank immediate take the action on the complaint of complainant and also got reported from outsource vendor to manage/monitor the case in ATMs of the OP No.2. The vendor given the report that on 07.6.2018 no excess cash was found against Txn No.7649 at SBI ATM ID BHNF000724013 located Bhadarkali Mandir, Jhansa Chungi, Kurukshetra. The transaction of machine and switch centre were also tallied with physical cash and the same was found correct with both centres. However, the E.J. log record of the ATM received from the switch centre also confirmed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn from the concerned ATM and the transaction is successful, the same was duly informed. However, there is no question of wrong debit for transaction dealt by the complainant on 07.7.2018 at about 11:27 from the ATM of OP No.2. If there is any wrong entry in the saving account of complainant for which the bank of complainant is responsible and liable. Hence, the OP No.2 bank is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

12.              There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was having a bank account bearing No.0397104000054409 with the OP No.1 branch.

13.              The grievance of the complainant is that on 07.07.2018, at about 11:27 am, he made a ATM transaction of withdrawing Rs.10,000/- from ATM of OP No.2, but the same was not successful, but his account was wrongly debited for Rs.10,000/-. In this regard, he time to time made various complaints to the OPs Ex.C-12, Ex.C-13 and Ex.C14. He also issued legal notice to OPs in this regard Ex.C-1.

14.              The OP No.1 contended that on the complaint of complainant dated 09.7.2018, it raised the issue with OP No.2, which was rejected by it on 18.07.2018 vide Dispute Tracking System Ex.R-1.

15.              On the other hand, OP No.2 contended that regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- from Saving Bank Account of complainant, the vendor given the report that on 07.6.2018 no excess cash was found against Txn No.7649 at SBI ATM ID BHNF000724013 located Bhadarkali Mandir, Jhansa Chungi, Kurukshetra Ex.R2/2. However, the E.J. log record of the ATM received from the switch centre also confirmed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn from the concerned ATM and the transaction is successful Ex.R2/1.

16.              From the above pleadings of the parties, we found that as per complainant, Rs.10,000/- has wrongly been debited from his account which he has not received, whereas, as per OP No.2, no excess cash was received on the date in question as Rs. Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn from the concerned ATM. Now there was only one way left by which this dispute can be sorted out and that is CCTV Footage of the dated 07.07.2018 when the transaction in question was made by the complainant. So, after the incident in question i.e. on 07.07.2018, it was incumbent upon the complainant immediately approach OP No.2 intimating about this incident and made prayer for preserve the CCTV footage of that date, but in the case in hand, as per OP No.2, the complainant neither intimated about this incident in question to it nor made any request for providing the CCTV footage. However, the complainant has neither denied this contention of OP No.2 nor produced any documentary evidence on the case file, vide which, it can be gathered that it intimated the OP NO.2 regarding the incident in question or ever made any written request for providing the CCTV footage of that date, which caused serious dent to the case of complainant. As per RBI guidelines, the CCTV footage can be preserved/stored only for more than 90 days. However, during the pendency of the present complaint, on 18.07.2019 the complainant moved an application before this Commission to give direction to OP No.2 to produce the CCTV footage of dated 07.07.2018 (11:27 am to 12:00 PM), but it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant moved that application on 18.07.2019, after a lapse of period of more than one year from the date of incident in question i.e. on 07.07.2018 and that’s why the said CCTV footage was destroyed by OP No.2 after the expiry of mandatory period of 90 days. Even if the complainant had approached OP No.2 and made request for providing the CCTV footage within the period of 90 days from the date of incident, then after seeing the said CCTV footage, the matter in question could not resolved after fixing the liability of the erring party, which could not be done due to sole negligence on the part to the complainant. Whereas, on the other hand, at the moment, the complainant intimated the OP No.1 regarding the alleged transaction in question, the OP no.1 immediately informed OP No.2 and thereafter, OP No.2 received the Vendor report wherein no excess cash was found. The OP No.2 further got checked the Log Record, from which, it was found that Rs.10,000/- has been withdrawn and as such, OP No.2 intimated to OP No.1 in this regard. So, now at this belated stage, by filing the complaint in question, complainant cannot shift burden upon the OPs for his own wrong one. It seems that, now by filing the present complaint, the complainant is contemplating the performance of impossibilities and shooting the arrows in the air. If such like complaints are entertained by the Consumer Fora, then it will be having wider repercussion and unforeseen consequences. Complaint is lacking substance. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The case law, produced by the complainant, is not disputed, but the same are not helpful to the case of the complainant, being rested on different footings.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:25.07.2022.

    

 

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.