DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.336 of 20-08-2013
Decided on 16-12-2013
Harjinder Singh aged about 30 years S/o Suba Singh R/o Sada Patti Jaitu, District Faridkot.
........Complainant
Versus
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kikkar Bazaar, Bathinda.
.......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Sham Labhaya, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite party: Sh.Abhey Singla, counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the M.D of Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank, Chandigarh made an advertisement and invited the applications through the website recruitnitttrchd.ac.in for filling of 43 vacant posts of clerk-cum-data entry operators, wherein it was desired to deposit the amount of Rs.800/- as application fee in the Punjab National Bank in order to get the online application form. The complainant being qualified as B.Tech from Punjab Technical University in E & C with 6 months course from an ISO 9001 certified institute, fulfilled the essential qualifications as required for the post and was most likely to be selected. The last date for depositing the application fee of Rs.800/- in Punjab National Bank was 24.6.2013 and the last date for submitting the online application was 29.6.2013 upto 5 P.M. As per the requirement of the advertisement the complainant deposited Rs.820/- (Rs.800/- as application fee and Rs.20/- as bank charges) on 18.6.2013 in the Kikkar Bazaar, Bathinda, branch of Punjab National Bank with the instructions to online transfer the application fee under NITTR No.509087 to the quarter concerned, hence availed the services of the opposite party, the complainant has given the reference of precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case cited as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. M/s Chawan Rishu International Ltd., 1995(2) CPC 94 (NC) / 1995(2) CPR 32 (NC). The complainant further alleged that despite submitting the fee 6 days before the due date, the online application form was not available to him even after 4 days. The complainant approached several times to the bank authorities, but the bank officials conveyed him that they have done their job and assured him that the online form would be available to him before 24.6.2013 but it was not available even in the morning of 25.6.2013 for the want of confirmation of fee details from the Punjab National Bank. On 25.6.2013, the complainant approached the bank branch and found another candidate namely Sh.Sumit Kumar making hue and cry for not receiving the online application and with his joint efforts, the bank officials checked their record and found that NITTTR No.509087 of the complainant was wrongly entered as 609087 by the bank, in this way the bank has failed to act according to his instructions, thus this amounts to deficiency in the service. To support his allegations the complainant has referred various authorities. The complainant tried to get the online application form till 29.7.2013, but all in vain. The complainant has deposited the correct amount of fee alongwith the bank charges in the correct bank as per the requirement of the online advertisement, well before the last date i.e. 24.6.2013. The complainant has deposited the application form, but due to the abovesaid act of the opposite party, he became unfit to apply for the post and failed to appear in the interview, wherein he was likely to be selected. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to return the amount of Rs.820/- (Rs.800/- as fee + Rs.20/- as bank charges) deposited by him on 18.6.2013 with them for the online transfer of the amount fee to NITTR on account of the fee for the post of clerk-cum-data entry operator as per the advertisement alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and admitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.820/-(Rs.800/- as fee and Rs.20/- as bank charges) on dated 18.6.2013 being the fee for applying in Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. with the instructions to online transfer the application fee under NITTR No.509087 to the quarter concerned. While entering the details in CBS, NITTR Id number is wrongly entered as 609087 instead of 509087. When this fact came to the knowledge of the branch, the issue has been taken up with IT Department at CO to get the necessary correction in the CBS system. The IT department has taken up the matter with HO for the rectification in the data entered by the Punjab National Bank branch and one another branch, it was informed by IT department that the issue has been taken up with HO and candidate can apply. The said message was verbally conveyed to the complainant by the concerned officials of the branch. Thus there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The disputed facts of the parties are that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.820/- (Rs.800/- as application fee and Rs.20/- as bank charges) on dated 18.6.2013 in the Punjab National Bank, Kikkar Bazaar Branch, Bathinda with the instructions to online transfer the application fee under NITTR No.509087 to the quarter concerned. But despite submitting the fee 6 days before the due date, the online application form was not available to him even after 4 days. The complainant approached several times to the bank authorities, the bank officials assured him that the online form would be available to him before 24.6.2013 but it was not available even in the morning of 25.6.2013 for the want of the confirmation of fee details from the Punjab National Bank. On 25.6.2013, the complainant approached the bank branch and found one another candidate namely Sumit Kumar making hue and cry for not receiving the online application form and with his joint efforts, the bank officials checked their record and found that NITTR No.509087 of the complainant was wrongly entered as 609087 by the bank, in this way the bank has failed to act according to his instructions, due to this act of the opposite party, he has suffered a lot and has failed to submit his application for the job mentioned above. The complainant has deposited the application alongwith the bank charges with the opposite party till the last date of payment of the application fee i.e. 24.6.2013, on 25.6.2013 the error was detected and on 27.6.2013 the error has been rectified by the bank and assurance was given that the online application form would be available to the complainant and finally on 29.7.2013 the online application was not made available to him. The complainant left with no option except to knock the doors of this Forum.
6. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party is that while entering the details in the CBS, NITTR Id number is wrongly entered as 609087 instead of 509087. When this fact came to the knowledge of the branch, the issue has been taken up with IT Department at CO to get the necessary correction in the CBS system. The IT department has taken up the matter with HO for the rectification in the data entered by the Punjab National Bank branch and one another branch, it was informed by IT department that the issue has been taken up with HO and candidate can apply. The said message was verbally conveyed to the complainant by the concerned officials of the branch.
7. The opposite party has admitted that it has failed to act as per the instructions of the complainant as the Id number was wrongly entered as 609087 instead of 509087, this fact might have came to the knowledge of the opposite party on the submission of the online fee, but till 25.6.2013, it was unable to convey the complainant that the NITTR number has wrongly been entered and has not done any efforts to rectify the same. The entering of the wrong NITTR number on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Thus it curtails the complainant from an opportunity to apply for the job with M.D of Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank, Chandigarh. Due to the non-deposit of the fee, the online application was not available to the complainant even after knowing about their error by the bank, on 27.6.2013 the error has been rectified by the bank and assurance was given that the online application form would be available to the complainant and finally on 29.7.2013 the online application was not made available to him. Vide Ex.C3, it is very much clear that the last date for depositing fee in Punjab National Bank is 24 June, 2013 and the last date for submission of online application is 29th June, 2013 upto 5:00 P.M, but despite the knowledge that the wrong NITTR number has been mentioned by the opposite party, the correction was not done till 29.6.2013 and the complainant was unable to get the online application form till 29.6.2013.
8. The opposite party has placed on file Ex.OP1/2, which shows that the wrong NITTR No.609087 has been entered, whereas the correct NITTR number is 509087. The version of the complainant seems to be true that one Sumit Kumar has also been making hue and cry that he has not received the online application and his fee has not been deposited by the bank, which is evident from Ex.OP1/2 that the wrong NITTR No.609087 has been entered, whereas the correct NITTR number was 509087. The opposite party has sent an e-mail to the Sr.Manager-IT, Punjab National Bank for the rectification of the NITTR number of both the candidates, but the same has not been done till 29.7.2013. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Bombay in case titled Harisaran Abbott Vs. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India and others, CPC 1994(1) 695, wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 17-Banking service-Complainant had instructed his bank to remit certain sum from his account at another branch of the bank-The amount instead of his account was remitted in the account of a firm in which the complainant was also a partner-Non compliance of instruction by the respondent bank-Deficiency in service proved-The bank was directed to pay interest on the amount at the rate of 15% interest.”
9. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it reveals that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation including the amount of Rs.820/- (Rs.800/- as application fee and Rs.20/- as bank charges) against the opposite party.
10. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
11. In case of non-compliance the amount of Rs.820/- will carry interest @9% per annum till realization.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
16-12-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
