Haryana

Karnal

CC/202/2015

Suraj Bahn S/o Daya Nand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.202 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.: 04.09.2015

                                                              Date of decision:9.12.2016

 

Suraj Bhan son of Shri Daya Nand resident of village Daulatpur P.O. Chjiroa Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

The Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Prem Nagar Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Sh. Suresh Khanna Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he is consumer of State Bank of Patiala, NDRI Branch having Savings Bank Account no.1003054346 and ATM card bearing no.6038455032600032970. On 14.09.2014, He obtained Mini Statement slip from ATM of the opposite party, which ascertained that ATM was working properly. Thereafter, he punched the ATM card in the same ATM of opposite party and after punching the card the ATM hanged. During the hanging of ATM some persons came and punched their ATMs also, but in vain, as the ATM could not start. After waiting about 10 minutes he went from there. After 15 minutes a message was received on his mobile regarding deduction of Rs.10,000/-. In fact, he had not given any command of withdrawal and had not received any money. Such fact can be verified from the CCTV Camera also and from the ATM Record. After receiving the message of deduction/debit of money he rushed to Opposite party, but the Bank was closed due to Holiday being Sunday. On 15.9.2014 he contacted the Branch Manager of opposite party and narrated the whole story to him. The Manager advised him that he could complain through his Bank i.e. State Bank of Patiala. On the same day, he contacted the Assistant Manager Mr. Gaba of State Bank of Patiala NDRI Branch, for submission of written complaint on the printed from given by the Bank. Mr. Gaba assured him about the credit of the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was wrongly debited from his account. He had also sent email to Bank Ombudsman and other concerned authorities, but in vain. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Notice of the complainant was given to opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party and that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/-. However, he violated the rules and regulations, while operating the ATM in presence of other users. In the presence of another user of ATM, one should not use the ATM. The JP log print also reveals that the transaction was successful. It was the bounden duty of the complainant to cancel the entry before leaving the ATM, if it was not working properly. It has further been pleaded that the complainant approached the Bank Ombudsman who after conducting enquiry, dismissed his complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.CW1/A and document Ex.CW1/B have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, the affidavit of  Rajiv Wadhwa Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the complainant and  learned counsel for the opposite party.

6.                As per the case of the complainant, he was having Savings Bank Account with State Bank of Patiala NDRI Branch Karnal. On 14.09.2014 he used the ATM machine of opposite party. He punched his ATM card, but the ATM machine hanged and after waiting about 10 minutes, he went away, but after 15 minutes a message was received on his mobile regarding debiting of Rs.10,000/- in his account, whereas he had neither given any command for withdrawal nor received any amount. In support of his allegations he filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A.

7.                The opposite party has submitted that there was no privity of contract between the opposite party and the complainant. Moreover, the transaction made by the complainant from the ATM machine of the opposite party was successful as per the JP log print. It has also been pleaded that it was bounden duty of the complainant not to operate the ATM Machine in presence of other user and to cancel the entry before leaving the ATM, if it was not working.

8.                The copy of the transaction of ATM machine of the opposite party Ex.O3 shows that on 14.9.2014 at 9.25 the complainant used the ATM machine for withdrawal an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the transaction was successful. The opposite party has also produced the copy of the JP log Ex.O4 which clearly shows that the transaction was successful and the amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn by using ATM card of the complainant in the said ATM machine of the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had punched ATM card in the ATM machine before the same allegedly hanged. The complainant must have cancelled the entry before leaving from there. If, the machine had hanged he must have intimated the opposite party that the machine was not working and his transaction was not complete, but he left from there without cancelling the entry and without informing the opposite party about hanging of the ATM machine. Had he not given any command, there could be no question of withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM machine. The facts and circumstances and the allegations made by the complainant indicate that he had given command for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/-, for sometime the machine hanged, but he left from there without cancelling the command and when after sometime the machine became functional the amount of Rs.10,000/- came out of the disbursal point and the same might have been taken away by some other person present there at that time. Therefore, the opposite party cannot be blamed for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant, rather it is clear that the complainant himself was negligent. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Even the complaint made by the complainant to Ombudsman of the Bank has been dismissed.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 9.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member