Delhi

StateCommission

A/345/2015

THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHD. AHMAD - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 29.08.2018

 

First Appeal No.345/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 08.05.2015 passed in Complainant Case No.151/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North East) Delhi)

 

 

The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

352, Gondha Main Road,

Delhi- 110053.                                                                  …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

Mr. Mohd. Ahmad,

R/o D-1358, Old No.D-1052,

Gali No.15, Top Gali,

Chauhan Banger,

Delhi – 110053.                                                              ….Respondent

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North East), Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.151/2014, by which the aforesaid complaint has been allowed and appellant/OP No.1 and OP No.2 before the District Forum i.e. Central Bank of India have been directed to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent/complainant jointly and severally with 9% p.a. interest thereon from the date of debit entry in the account of respondent/complainant. Further, an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation has also been awarded.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before District Forum stating therein that he is an account/ATM holder of the appellant/OP No.1. It was alleged that on 25.05.2013 he used his ATM Card bearing No.5126520187147330 issued by appellant/OP No.1 in the ATM machine of OP No.2 i.e. Central Bank of India for withdrawal of the money, but the money could not be withdrawn as the machine was not working. Thereafter, he had used the ATM card in the machine of United Bank of India i.e. OP No.3 before the District Forum to withdraw Rs.10,000/-  from his account maintained with appellant/OP No.1, six times but no cash came out and only the slips with the remark “sorry unable to process and use limit exceed” came out. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant did not received any amount from the ATM machines of OP No.2 and 3 but was shocked and surprise to find that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was debited by appellant/OP No.1 from his account. Later on appellant/OP No.1 reversed the entries by crediting Rs.25,000/-. It was alleged that respondent/complainant made complaint on 27.08.2013 to appellant/OP No.1 for reversing the remaining balance of Rs.25,000/-, however, the same was rejected vide communication dated 29.08.2013 on the ground that as per no excess cash certificate dated 01.07.2013 issued by OP No.2 Central Bank of India, no extra cash was found at particular time. Respondent/complainant prayed for directions to appellant/OP No.1 and other two OPs for refund of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @18% from the date of debit and also prayed for compensation and litigation costs.
3. Appellant/OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 and OP No.3 contested the complaint case by filing separate written statements. Appellant/OP No.1 alleged that respondent/complainant had used the ATM machine of OP No.2 six times vide transaction numbers as mentioned in the written statement as well as in the impugned order for Rs.10,000/- each. It was alleged that out of these transactions 02 transactions of Rs.10,000/- each and 01 transaction of Rs.5,000/- were successful, thus respondent/complainant had withdrawn Rs.25,000/- and remaining Rs.25,000/- had been credited in his account. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.2 i.e. Central Bank of India in its reply before the District Forum stated that 03 transactions were successful and Rs.25,000/- had already been received by respondent/complainant and no excess cash was found in its ATM machine during the relevant time. OP No.3 i.e. United Bank of India in its reply before the District Forum had stated that all the transactions were unsuccessful and no money was withdrawn from its ATM machine.
5. After hearing the parties, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and found the appellant/OP No.1 and Central Bank of India i.e. OP No.2 before the District Forum, guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to pay the amount as has been stated above. 
6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed by appellant/OP No.1.
7. We may mention that OP No.2 Central Bank of India did not challenge the impugned order and has complied with the same by paying 50% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs.19,778/- to respondent/complainant.
8. Ld. Counsel for appellant/OP No.1 has contended that the ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the certificates regarding ‘no excess cash’ dated 01.07.2013 issued by OP No.2 Central Bank of India in respect of 03 transactions. It is contended that District Forum ought not have disbelieved the said certificate. It is submitted that if the aforesaid documents are taken into consideration impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, ld. counsel for respondent/complainant has argued that the impugned order is legal and valid and District Forum has rightly disbelieved the said documents which are being relied upon by the appellant/OP No.1.
10. It is admitted position that appellant/OP initially debited Rs.50,000/- from the account of respondent/complainant against six transactions and thereafter on the complaint of the respondent/complainant entries of Rs.25,000/- were reversed by the appellant/OP No.1 by crediting the said amount in his account. There is dispute only in respect of 03 transaction of total amount of Rs.25,000/-.
11. Appellant/OP No.1 is relying upon ‘no excess cash’ certificates issued by OP No.2 Central Bank of India to substantiate that the transactions were successful. Ld. District Forum has considered the said document and has held as under:

 

“Complainant has placed on record two no excess cash certificates relating to transaction No.678124867006 and 678124865435 while OP No.2 has placed the same relating to transaction No.678124867006 only. Scrutiny of all the three certificates filed by OP 2 relates to transactions for withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- only while certificates as filed by complainant relate to transaction of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- each. Not only this we observe that these transactions relate to No.T30A244311. Perusal of statement of account placed on record by complainant show a different No.i.e. T30A244316781. This fact substantiates the version of complainant that ATM machine of OP 2 was not working and it was not delivering correct report of transactions. Plea of OP 1 that certain other persons has withdrawn money out of OP 2’s ATM, the same date is not with any supportive document and can’t be relied upon as such.

 

In these circumstances, no excess cash certificate issued by OP 2 can’t be relied upon while statement placed on record by the complainant is an admitted document.”

 

12. We find no reason to disagree with the reasoning given by Ld. District Forum in coming to conclusion that no excess cash certificate issued by OP No.2 Central Bank of India can’t be relied upon. We, find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
13. Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
14. Appellant/OP No.1 shall pay the balance amount to the respondent/complainant within 04 weeks of the receipt of this order.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum for information. 

                 Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.     

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

• President 

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

• Member