Delhi

New Delhi

CC/504/2013

Naveen Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

 C.C.No.504/2013

 

 

          Naveen Chopra,

          S/o Sh. Hari Chand Chopra,

          A-76, Pkt.1, Paschim Puri,

        New Delhi-110063.

Vs.

 

1. Punjab National Bank,

          Through its Manager,

         9, WestAvenue Road,

         Punjabi Bagh,

        New Delhi-110026.

 

2. Punjab National Bank (IT Department),

         Through its Manager,

         5, Parliament Street,

         Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is having an account bearing No.1501000101315699 with OP  along with ATM facilities.  It is alleged that on 16.5.2012,  the complainant visited ATM of OP-2 situated at Paschimpuri and tried to withdraw a sum of Rs.500/-.  The machine did not respond and as such the complainant left the place and went to another centre situated Maurya Enclave, withdrew a sum of Rs.500/-. A mini statement from ATM was generated after withdrawal from where he came to know that a sum of Rs.15000/- has already been withdrawn from his account.   It is submitted that the complainant informed to the official of OP-1 about the same, who advised him to contact Bhairav Enclave Branch of OP, as the complaint regarding the same was dealt by that Branch.   He immediately approached  Bhairav Enclave Branch for lodging his complaint but the official of the same refused to accept the complaint and asked him to lodge the same with OP-1.  It is further submitted that the complainant lodged a complaint on the helpline No. of OP-1, who issued the complaint No.57783262 to him.   It is alleged that vide letter dated 29.5.2012, OP-1 rejected his complaint regarding the non-receipt of the fund by him. Thereafter complainant demanded CCTV footage of ATM Centre in question,  both the OPs refused to provide the same.  It is alleged that he approached P.S. Madipur Chowk to lodge a complaint against OPs but all in vain, therefore, complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OPs.  OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part. It is stated by the OP that on 16.5.2012, the complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide card No.512652006430313 from ATM machine, the JP Log and reconciliation statement for the period from 14.5.12 to 16.5.12 shows the status of “ATM TALLIED”.    It is stated by the OP that no CCTV was installed in alleged ATM, hence footage was not available.  It is further stated that after receiving the complaint from the helpline No. all the steps were taken by the OP and on scrutiny it was found that the transaction of Rs.15,000/- made by  the complainant though his card was successful and prayed for the  dismissal of complaint.

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     It is argued by the OP that on 16.5.2012, the complainant  had withdrawn  a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide card No.512652006430313 from ATM machine, the JP Log and reconciliation statement for the period from 14.5.12 to 16.5.12 shows the status of “ATM TALLIED”.   In support of his contention he has drawn our attention toward JP Log report, reconciliation statement and switch transaction report.  Perusal of the same reveals that on 16.5.2012 the complainant has used his ATM Card twice for the first time he withdrawn Rs.15,000/- and on 2^nd occasion Rs.500/-.  The report placed by the OP shows that the transactions was successful one. 

6.     It is a general practice that an ATM Card can only be used if the customer inputs his personal four digit identification number which is selected by the customer and not by the Bank. In the interest of security the customer is advised to retain this PIN in his memory so that no one else is privy to this information. The reverse of the ATM has a magnetic strip and white strip for signature of the cardholder. The Magnetic strip contains the cardholder’s details. This card can be used to gain entry into ATM enclosure by swiping it in the access lodge. In other words, unless a person is in possession of the relevant ATM Card and knows, the four digit PIN, the ATM Card cannot be used and operated. In the present case, the complainant has not alleged that the ATM card was misplaced, infact, the same is in his possession and as per the procedure without PIN number,  no one can access the ATM card or can use it hence, in the present case, we are of the opinion that in the light the copies of JP Log report, reconciliation statement and switch transaction report reveals that on 16.5.2012 the complainant has used his ATM Card twice for the first time he withdrew Rs.15,000/- and on 2^nd occasion Rs.500/- and both transaction were successful.

 

7.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the there is no deficiency in services on the part of OPs. Therefore, we find no merits  in the present complaint same is hereby dismissed.     

 

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.  The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to R.R

 

Announced in open Forum on 11/12/2018.

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                 MEMBER