Haryana

StateCommission

A/439/2016

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

AKSHAY SINGH

30 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                  First Appeal No.439 of 2016

                                                                Date of Institution:18.05.2016

                                                                    Date of decision:30.05.2017

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul, through Manager, Punjab National Bank, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.
2.  Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, ATM Cell, Antriksh Bhawan, 22KG Marg, 9^th Floor, New Dehli.

…Appellants

                                      Versus

1.      Neer Singh S/o Narain Singh, R/o Village Kalba, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).  

2.      State Bank of India, Branch Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, through Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.                                                                      

…Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mr.Sunil Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                   Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Jitender Yadav, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, respondent No.2.

 

                                                ORDER

 

Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

 

          It is alleged by complainant that he opened an account with opposite party No.1 (for short ‘OP’) and obtained ATM card under the said account. On 21.03.2012 complainant used the ATM situated at Nangal Chaudhary of OP No.2 and made two transactions for withdrawing Rs.10,000/- each, but not received the amount of Rs.20,000/-. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was debited from his account. On complaint, his grievance was not redressed by OPs. Hence, this complaint.

2.      OP No.1 and OP Nos.2 & 3 filed separate reply. OP No.1 alleged that when transaction was made through ATM, then account was debited on withdrawal of amount as per system. He made transactions through ATM of OP No.2 that could give correct information with regard to alleged amount. It sought information from OP No.2 and as and when any information would be received that would be communicated to him. Neither any amount was received from Punjab National Bank nor any information was received. So there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

3.      OP Nos.2 & 3 denied the use of ATM. If, any amount is debited from his account then OP No.1 would responsible for the same. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4.      After hearing arguments learned District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘District Forum’) allowed complaint vide order dated 15.12.2015 and directed as under:-

“1.     Opposite party NO.1 is to credit an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the account of the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. 21.03.2012 till its deposit.

2.      Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

3.      Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

4.      Opposite parties NO.2 and 3 are also directed to transmit the disputed amount to opposite party NO.1 the State Bank of India if not transmitted so far.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs have preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      It is urged by learned counsel for appellant that documents produced today are not attested documents and last digits are not tallying. ATM number is also different. So it is not liable to pay any compensation.

8.      This argument cannot be accepted. Documents produced today are attested by the counsel and there is no necessity of the original documents. As far as number of ATM concerned, it is clarified by State Bank of India that last three digits are not shown in the transaction list issued by Punjab National Bank. ATM transaction shows that the amount was withdrawn by so many persons, but, it does not mean that transaction made by complainant was successful. As per reply, Rs.68,400/- were in excess in the ATM. It means that all the transactions were not successful. It is nowhere alleged or proved by appellant that any other user had complained about any transaction. It is well settled proposition of law that benefit of doubt be given to the consumer. Though there is cogent evidence and complaint cannot be rejected.

9.      However, appellant may raise claim before State Bank of India about it’s liability. With these observations appeal is disposed off accordingly.

10.    Statutory amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

May, 30^th, 2017                                 Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K. Bishnoi

                                                            Member                                  Judicial Member

                                                            Addl. Bench                          Addl. Bench