DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 888/13

Shri Rakesh Kumar

S/o Shri Chanda Singh

R.o I-127, Adhyapak Nagar

Nangloi, Delhi                                                                             ….Complainant

Vs.

Punjab National Bank

(Through its Manager/GM/MD/CMD)

H.O. 7, Bhikaji Gama Place

New Delhi – 110 066                                                                    ….Opponent

Date of Institution: 11.10.2013

Judgment Reserved for : 26.08.2016

Judgment Passed on : 02.09.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Rakesh Kumar has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against M/s. Punjab National Bank (OP) to return a sum of Rs. 16,500/- and Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.compensation on account of negligence, deficiency in service, harassment and towards the cost of litigation.

2.        The complainant was having saving bank account no. 3073001500043697 with Nangloi Village branch of Punjab National Bank (OP).  On 09.07.2013, between 8.00-8.30 a.m., he visited a nearby ATM, installed at Shiv Ram Park, Main Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, to withdraw a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and when he completed the process of withdrawal, he was shocked that ATM dispensed only Rs. 500/- instead of Rs. 15,000/-.  No print out receipt was dispensed from the said ATM.  He registered a complaint vide complaint No. 60019547 over Toll free no. 18001032222.  He made another withdrawal transaction through the same ATM for an amount of       Rs. 4,000/- and he got only Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 4,000/-.  Here also no print out transaction receipt was dispensed by the said ATM.  He made a complaint vide same complaint no. 60019547 over Toll free no. 18001032222. 

On 10.07.2013, he visited at the branch of OP bank during its business hours and handed over a written complaint demanding a total sum of Rs. 16,500/-.  He made a written complaint on 22.07.2013.  He also met the Branch Manager of OP bank on 25.07.2013.  He also lodged a complaint with Police Station Nangloi through his application of dated 05.08.2013.  However, the officials of OP did not pay any heed to his complaint.  Thus, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 16,500/- on account of deficiency in services as well as Rs. 71,000/- compensation on account of negligence, harassment and cost of litigation.

3.        In the WS, PNB (OP) have taken various pleas such as the court was not having jurisdiction; the complainant has done the transaction at 9.06 a.m. and not between8.00 – 8.30 a.m.  Switch Report and No Excess Cash Certificate show the complete disbursal of the amount of Rs. 15,000/-.  They have denied the second transaction of Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 4,000/-.  They have denied other pleas of the complainant. 

The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

4.        In support of its case, the complainant as examined himself who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited copy of complaint dated 09.07.2013 (Ex. C/1), copy of complaint of dated 22.07.2013 (Ex. C/2), copy of email provided by the bank (Ex. C/3), copy of email dated 25.07.13 (Ex. C/4) and copy of police complaint (Ex. C/5).

5.        In defence, OP has examined Shri Sushil Kumar Goel, Senior Manager, PNB, who has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited JP Log, Switch report and     No-excess cash certificate as Exhibit. R1, R2 and R3, in respect of transaction of Rs. 15,000/-.  He has further got exhibited JP Log, Switch report and No-excess cash certificate as Exhibit R1, R2 and R3, in respect of transaction of Rs. 4,000/-.  It has been deposed that there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP.

6.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant has not got the amount of two transactions, which he have made.  On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of OP that the transactions have been successful and there was no complaint from any other person who have used the said ATM.

            If a look is made to the testimony of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Complainant, it is noticed that he has stated that he used ATM at Shiv Ram Park, Main Najafgarh Road, Nangloi to draw a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and he got only Rs. 500/-.  However, he has not placed on record any print out of the said transaction as his version was that no print out was dispensed from the said ATM.  Further, with regard to transaction for an amount of Rs. 4,000/-, his version has been that he got an amount of Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 4,000/-.  Here also, no receipt has been put on record.  Thus, from these two transactions, it is not the case of the complainant that the ATM machine was not working, but his case only was that he made two transactions for an amount of        Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- and got an amount of Rs. 500/- for the first transaction and Rs. 2,000/- for the second transaction.

            In the absence of any transaction receipt, it cannot be said that he got an amount of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2,000/- for the transactions of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively.  On the contrary, JP Log    (Ex. R1), which has been exhibited in the testimony of Shri Sushil Kumar Goel, Senior Manager of PNB, it is noticed that on 09.07.2013, transaction for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was made and cash was taken.  However, time of this transaction has been 9.06 a.m., whereas in the testimony of the complainant, he has stated the time as 8.00-8.30 a.m.  Further, the Switch transaction report (Ex.R2) show the withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively.  Reconciliation sheet (Ex. R1) does not show any excess amount.  Thus, from the testimony of Shri Sushil Kumar Goel coupled with the documents, it is evident that both the transactions were successful and the version given by the complainant that he has only received an amount of      Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2,000/- in respect of his transaction withdrawal of  Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively cannot be accepted.  Thus, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of OP.

6.        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of OP.  Hence, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed without any cost.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

       (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President