BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 27 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 04.02.2021.
Date of Decision : 22.11.2022.
Satpal son of Sh. Krishan Lal, resident of village Narain Khera, Post Office Makhosarani, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa- 125110 Haryana, Mobile No. 94663-32514.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Ding Mandi, Sirsa.
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. G.S. Soni, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is maintaining a saving account bearing No. 0642000100127616 with op no.1 and is also having ATM Card of said account. On 1.12.2020 the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- through ATM Card from ATM of State Bank of India in Sadar Bazar opposite Masjid, Sirsa vide ATM withdrawal transaction No. 033614008901 but in this transaction complainant received only an amount of Rs.5500/- and thereafter ATM machine stopped and remaining amount of Rs.4500/- remained in the ATM machine. It is further averred that as the amount of Rs.4500/- was not received by complainant, therefore he moved an application to both the ops but despite passing of period of two months, the ops have not redressed the grievance of the complainant rather the officers of the ops are saying that transaction had been successful whereas actually complainant received less amount of Rs.4500/-, the inquiry of which can be conducted through footage of CCTV cameras installed in the aforesaid ATM. In this manner, the ops knowingly are not returning the amount of Rs.4500/- to the complainant and as such complainant is entitled to the said amount alongwith compensation amount of Rs. two lacs for harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement submitting therein that since the ATM card is of the PNB, therefore, complainant should have used the ATM machine of the PNB. Moreover, since the alleged amount of Rs.4500/- is directly concerned to op no.2 and thus, present complaint does not lie against answering op. Still on the complaint received by answering op, necessary steps have been taken and a number of complaints were made by the answering op to the State Bank of India in this regard at its own level with a request to resolve the problem of the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
3. Op no.2 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, jurisdiction, no consumer dispute and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has approached the answering op and made a complaint to the answering op with regard to non receipt of amount from ATM. After receipt of the complaint, the answering op immediately referred the complaint to the concerned Authority of the Punjab National Bank, which after thorough investigation has found no excess cash or base difference in the ATM meaning thereby the transaction made by the complainant found successful and he has received the amount as per command. That as per report of op no.1, the complainant has received his entire amount. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of statement of account mark C1, copy of adhar card mark C2, copy of text message mark C3, copy of application dated 18.1.2021 mark C4, email mark C5.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rohit Sharma, Branch Manager Ex.R1 and copies of emails Ex.R2 to Ex.R5. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saroj Kumar, Chief Manager as Ex.R6.
7. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for ops and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The grievance of the complainant is that on 1.12.2020, he went to the ATM of State Bank of India for withdrawing an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his account maintained with op no.1 through his ATM Card and he made transaction of the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the ATM of op no.2 situated in Sadar Bazar Sirsa, but he received an amount of Rs.5500/- against the said transaction of the amount of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter ATM machine was stopped. As such, the complainant has alleged that remaining amount of Rs.4500/- remained in the ATM machine and was not received by him. The op no.2 from whose ATM above said transaction of the amount of Rs.10,000/- was made by complainant has averred that after receipt of the complaint, the op no.2 immediately referred the complaint to the concerned Authority of the Punjab National Bank which after thorough investigation has found no excess cash or base difference in the ATM meaning thereby that transaction made by complainant was successful and he received the amount as per command. But this contention of op no.2 found to be without any substance because the ATM machine was related to the op no.2 and the employees of op no.2 would have inserted the amount in the ATM from the State Bank of India bank and therefore, it cannot be said that Punjab National Bank did not find excess cash or difference in the ATM since the ATM machine was of op no.2. The op no.2 has also not placed on file any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the said plea that transaction was successful and complainant received the amount of Rs.10,000/- as per command as the op no.2 has not placed on file any report in this regard availed from any higher authorities where data regarding whole transactions is available and op no.2 has also not placed on record any report of investigation allegedly conducted by authority of op no.1. Op no.2 has also not placed on file any statement of account of the relevant date to show that how much amount was inserted in the ATM Machine and further to show that there was no difference in the amount on the relevant date. In absence of any cogent and convincing evidence in this regard, the version of the complainant that he received less amount is to be believed and relied upon. Therefore, complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.4500/- from op no.2 as this amount remained in the ATM machine of op no.2 whereas entry of deduction of the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the account of complainant was entered.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.2 and op no.2 is directed to make refund of the amount of Rs.4500/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.4500/- from the date of this order till actual payment from op no.2. We also direct op no.2 to further pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua op no.1 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 22.11.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
