DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

=============

Pradeep Kumar (OBC No. 06182011005688) House No.2001, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

[1]          Oriental Bank of Commerce, SCO No. 48, Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

[2]          Punjab & Sindh Bank situated at Chandni Chowk (near Gurdwara), New Delhi.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA           MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By: Complainant in person.

Sh. B.R. Bansal, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1.

Sh. I.P. Singh,  Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 Briefly stated, the Complainant had gone to Delhi for his business. As there was no ATM of Opposite Party No.1 (Complainant’s Banker) in the vicinity, he tried to withdraw money from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2.  When he logged in to withdraw `20,000/-, the ATM screen of Opposite Party No.2 showed insufficient funds.  There was only `11,823/- in his account.  The Complainant has stated that he had asked his brother in the morning to deposit `20,000/- in his account. So he came out of the ATM to confirm the deposit from his brother. When the deposit of money was confirmed on the same day, the Complainant tried the ATM of SBI at Chandni Chowk, New Delhi.  On operating the SBI ATM the Complainant realized that the balance of account was same, but it showed a withdrawal of `10,000/- from the account. The Complainant withdrew `10,000/- from the ATM of SBI. Needing more money, he again asked his brother to deposit Rs.5,000/- in his account, which he also withdrew from the ATM of SBI.       

                    On his return to Chandigarh the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 on 22.09.2011 and told the Opposite Party about the whole episode and the inconvenience caused to him at the ATM. He also lodged a written complaint with them. However, the representation was rejected.

                    The Complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with the request that the matter be enquired and his grievance be solved.

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.                 Opposite Party No.1 in reply has submitted that as soon as the Complainant approached them with his complaint (Regn. No.66267/11), it was forwarded for investigation by the Card Operation Centre, COPEC located at Secundrabad with the remarks that the “complaint has been rejected by the Acquirer Bank in dispute Management System of NPCI” on 26.09.2011.  The complaint (Regn. No. 67087/11) was again forwarded on the same day for the transaction done at SBI ATM which was also rejected. In the meantime, the Complainant had also approached the Banking Ombudsman regarding the disputed transaction undertaken by him at State Bank of India ATM (NFS Network). The Bank has also lodged a pre-arbitration on 25.10.2011. Both are still pending. 

                    Opposite Party No. 1 has further submitted that the Complainant has wrongly stated that he requested for withdrawal of `20,000/-. In fact, as per the form filled in by the Complainant in the charge back form for ATM, a withdrawal of `10,000/- was made from the ATM of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Opposite Party No.1 has therefore, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.                 Opposite Party No.2 in reply has submitted that the complaint is completely false and frivolous. The Complainant withdrew `10,000/- from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 vide ATM withdrawal transaction report dated 21.09.2011 at 10.58:44. The complete details of all the transactions have been attached at Annexure A & B.  As per these reports, Sr. No 31 in Annexure A shows that the transaction was successful and the Complainant withdrew `10,000/-, leaving a balance of `8,177/-. Annexure-B which relates to the transactions of the Complainant alone shows an attempt to withdraw `20,000/- which was unsuccessful due to insufficient funds. The subsequent attempt to withdraw `10,000/-, was successful. Opposite Party No. 2 has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                 We have heard the Complainant in person and the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.                 The grievance of the Complainant is that he was not able to withdraw money with the help of ATM card issued by Opposite Party No.1 from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2, for which he has held both the Banks responsible. 

8.                 Annexure A placed on record by Opposite Party No.1 is a complete detail of all transactions of the concerned ATM along with time on 21.09.2011 for the whole day. It can be seen that Sr. No. 31 is a transaction regarding the Complainant when `10,000/- has been withdrawn at 10.58:44. Annexure B is the detail of the transactions relating to the Complainant only. A perusal of the data shows that the Complainant requested for `20,000/- at 10.53:32 and again at 10.54:03.  When the amount could not be taken out, the Complainant requested for `10,000/- on 10.54:46 and the amount of `10,000/- was withdrawn. The available balance after this transaction in the account was `8,177/- The account statement relating to the Complainant placed on record by the Oriental Bank of Commerce shows that `10,000/- has been withdrawn from the account of the Complainant twice. The second withdrawal of `10,000/- was admittedly from the ATM of SBI. The main grievance of the Complainant is that though his brother has deposited `20,000/- in his account, he was not able to withdraw this money at the ATM. It needs to be stated here that the exact time of deposit of `20,000/- by the brother of the Complainant is not given. Hence, it is not known whether the deposit was before or after the attempt of the Complainant to withdraw `20,000/- from his ATM as the money in the account before the deposit was inadequate.  All other transactions made by the Complainant have been successful as per the ATM details placed on record by the Opposite Parties. The withdrawal of `10,000/- twice, once from the ATM of Opposite Party No.2 and once from the ATM of SBI matches with his bank statement.

9.                 In view of above, we do not find any substance in the complaint. Otherwise also, the complaint has been rejected by the Dispute Management System of the Bank. We accordingly dismiss it. No costs.

10.               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11^th June,  2012.                                                                       

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER