Haryana

StateCommission

A/361/2017

M/S BANDHAN BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAU ADANAN - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      361 of 2017

Date of Institution:      29.03.2017

Date of Decision :      26.04.2018

 

M/s Bandhan Bank Limited, 139/20, Indra Colony, near IT Office, Atlas Road, Sonipat, Haryana through its authorised representative Sh. Kumar Saurabh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Mau Adanan s/o Sh. Hajaharool Hasan, Resident of FLW No.13, Khanna Colony, Sonipat, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Bank of Baroda, through its Branch Manager, Railway Road, Opposite Old Civil Hospital, Sonipat, Haryana.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated January 13^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Mau Adanan-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) is having a saving bank account No.50150085741150 in Bandhan Bank, Atlas Road, Sonipat –Opposite Party No.1 (appellant herein). The complainant has been provided a card of Automated Teller Machine (for short ‘ATM’) also in order to facilitate him to withdraw amount. On April 06^th, 2016 the complainant inserted his ATM card in the ATM installed at Village Nagina, District Bijnor, U.P. installed by Bank of Baroda-opposite party No.2 for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The transaction could not be successful. The complainant did not receive any amount from ATM but soon after a message was received on his mobile that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been debited from the account of the complainant on account of above mentioned ATM transaction. The complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1 by filing an application in writing. Ultimately, the complainant received a receipt from the opposite party No.1 mentioning that it was a case of non-transaction. It is the case of the complainant that he is entitled to receive the above mentioned amount. The opposite parties did not refund the amount mentioned above despite repeated requests of the complainant.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite party No.1 to credit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the complainant along with interest; to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service; to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite party No.1 submitted its reply by post on 26^th July, 2016 admitting that the complainant is an account holder of Bandhan Bank. A complaint was received on 07^th April, 2016 on the plea that an amount of Rs.10,000/- could not be disbursed to the complainant  by ATM installed by opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 provided copies of cash balance report of the ATM to the opposite party No.1 and some images captured by the Pin Hole camera of the ATM.  From the above documents and examination it is clear that a withdrawal transaction of Rs.10,000/- was initiated through ATM card with ID IFDBIJ07 as the response code 000 was marked to it in the EJ, the transaction was successful. The response code 000 is universal error code connoted by the Bank of Baroda to indicate a successful transaction in ATM. At per cash balance report provided by Bank of Baroda, Nagina branch, there was no excess cash amount found in the ATM during reconciliation. It is pleaded that it is not a case of deficiency in service and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                Opposite Party No.2 – Bank of Baroda, in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No.2 is not responsible for settlement of claim amount or any other amount claimed by the complainant on account of sufferings, un-necessary harassment and mental agony etc. The complainant was to withdraw cash amount by using ATM from the saving bank account maintained with the opposite party No.2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 13^th January, 2017 the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of the order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 13^th January, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-opposite party No.1 has filed the present First Appeal No.361 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

8.                Opposite Party No.2 appeared in the proceedings of this appeal after notice on 12^th October, 2017 but thereafter the opposite party No.2 also stopped appearing in the proceedings of this appeal. Similarly, the respondent No.1/complainant did not appear despite service on 29^th January, 2018.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

10.              During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant was having saving bank account with Bandhan Bank – opposite party No.1. The complainant was  also provided ATM card for withdrawal of the amount from his account. It is also admitted fact and is evident from the record on the file that ATM card provided to the complainant was used on 06^th April, 2016 for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his account in the ATM installed by opposite party No.2 – Bank of Baroda at Village Nagina, District Bijnore, U.P. Version of the complainant is that he inserted the ATM card in the ATM but the transaction was not successful and on the same day he received SMS from the bank that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been withdrawn from his account by using ATM card. Copy of SMS from the bank is Exhibit C-4.  It is evident from the statement of account Exhibit C-1 that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant on 06^th April, 2016 by using ATM  card provided to the complainant. The Bank of Baroda has provided the copy of cash balancing report Exhibit OP-1 alongwith some images captured by the Pin Hole camera of the ATM. On examination of the documents provided by Bank of Baroda, observations were made that the transaction was successful and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by using ATM card provided to the complainant. Said transaction was successful since the response code 000 was marked to it in the ‘EJ’. The response code 000 is universal error code connoted by the Bank of Baroda to indicate a successful transaction in ATM. As in the copy of cash balancing report provided by the Bank of Baroda, Nagina Nodal Branch shows that there was no excess cash amount found in the ATM during reconciliation. Documents Exhibit OP-1/6 and Exhibit OP-1/7 reports and photographs support the version of the appellant-opposite party No.1.

11.              Learned District Forum gave findings in favour of the complainant mentioning that the transaction was found successful as the report was prepared mentioning response code as 000 marked to it in the electronic journal. Learned District Forum made observation that in the document Exhibit C-2 the response code is mentioned as 00. Thus transaction was shown successful only against code 000. Learned District Forum has made observation that the complainant received response code 00 which cannot be said to be successful in the transaction. On these basis findings were given that it could not be proved that it was a transaction. Opposite Party No.1 was given direction to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest.

12.              We have also gone through the entire record on the file more particularly NPCI – Dispute Management System (Exhibit C-2). In this document the response code is mentioned 00 regarding transaction dated 06^th April, 2016 at about 15:13:49 hrs. In this document also, the transaction was shown successful.

13.              During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-opposite party No.1 filed an application seeking permission to file few documents on the file to make it easy to decide the controversy involved in this case. The complainant has placed on the file Power of Attorney as well as the application received under the Right to Information Act by the appellant and reply of the application giving required information. By filing application dated 31^st October, 2017 (Annexure A-6), opposite party No.1 Shri Vishal Singh sought information from Shri K.D. Bansal, Public Information Officer, Bank of Baroda in connection with this transaction, more particularly, to show the meaning of response code No.00 and 000 with respect to the ATM transaction. The opposite party No1 received information vide letter dated 08^th November, 2017 (Annexure A-7) as the information was not complete, the opposite party No.1 through Vishal Singh filed an appeal copy of which is Annexure A/8 on 02^nd, December, 2017 from General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of Baroda. In the information supplied by the appellate authority under the Right to Information Act (Annexure A-9) required information is given in clear words mentioning that as per the information collected from the respective departments, meaning of response code 00 is ‘transaction is successful’.  The other information received vide letter Annexure A-9 are not so much relevant for the decision of this appeal. So, merely  because the response code is mentioned as 00 in Exhibit C-2, findings should not be given that wrong response code was used and that it was not a successful transaction.

14.              From the letter Annexure A-9 received under Right to Information Act, it is clear that mentioning of response code as 00 in the document itself is sufficient to give finding that it was a successful transaction. We feel learned District Forum has given findings in favour of the complainant because the documents Annexure A-6 to A-9 were not adduced in evidence before the learned District Forum by the opposite party No.1. Now situation is clear on the basis of evidence on the file. As discussed above, findings can be safely given that it was a successful transaction of the complainant for withdrawing an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his saving bank account availing ATM facility on 06^th April, 2016. The complainant could not adduce any convincing evidence to prove that there was no withdrawal of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his saving bank account by using ATM card. Moreover, the complainant did not appear in the proceedings of this appeal. We could not get any help from the complainant or his counsel in this appeal to arrive at a right conclusion.

15.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned District Forum has committed an error while giving findings. It was a case of successful transaction and that the complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.10,000/-.  Findings of the learned District Forum are held to be illegal, invalid and are hereby set aside. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant-opposite party No.1 is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed.

16.              The statutory amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 26.04.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL