DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALWAL
Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2014 Date of Institution: 01.07.2014
Date of Decision : 16.2.2015
Smt. Seema wife of Sh. Ompal, aged 40 years, resident of Prakash Vihar, Palwal, Tehsil & District Palwal.
.. Complainant.
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Branch at Village Alawalpur, Tehsil & District Palwal ( Through its branch manager).
2. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kasturba Gandhi Road, No. 14, Ground Floor, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi H.O, Delhi-01.
..Respondents/Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: JAGBIR SINGH: PRESIDENT
KHUSHWINDER KAUR: MEMBER
R. S. DHARIWAL: MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh.Samarjeet Singh Maan Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Jitender Rawat, Adv. for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no. 2 given up.
ORDER:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant used her ATM card for withdrawing an amount of Rs.5,000/- from ATM of opposite party no.2 situated at Lajpat Nagar on 26.4.2014, but the transaction failed.
When the transaction failed the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party no.1 in which she was having account and from which the amount was debited from her account. Complainant
-2-
also made a written complaint on 13.5.2014 to opposite party no.1 but all in vain. Then complainant was left with no choice but to file the present complaint before this Forum for taking legal action regarding the amount in question and prayed to this Forum to direct opposite parties to reimburse the lost amount of Rs.5,000/- with an interest @ 18% per annum, to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- and further directs the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation amount on account of mental agony and harassment.
Upon receipt of the complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties by this Forum. Opposite parties no.1 and opposite party no. 2 appeared through their respective counsels and filed reply on behalf of opposite party no.1. Opposite party no. 1 has filed reply wherein it refuted the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections such as the complaint was not maintainable, has no locus standi, has not come with clean hands, is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and further prayed for cost under Section 35-A of CPC. Similarly in parawise reply also all the allegations have been refuted by opposite party no.1. In para to para no. 3 of the complaint, the opposite party no. 1 has denied the transaction have failed. On the contrary the transaction made by the complainant was successful and she has received the amount of Rs.5,000/- from ATM machine as per record available with the opposite party no.1. Rest of the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and in the last it is prayed that the alleged complaint is totally false and based on concealed facts and same is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite party no.2 also appeared and on the very first date i.e on 13.8.2014 he has paid the amount in question regarding which the complainant was stating that transaction was unsuccessful. The opposite party no. 2 have paid Rs.5,000/- through DD no.144754, dated
-3-
12.8.2014 and statement regarding given up of opposite party no. 2 have been made on 13.8.2014 itself by the Ld. Counsel of the complainant namely Sh. Anuj Mittal, Advocate.
To substantiate her case the complainant filed documents which are Ex.CW1/A which is her affidavit in which she has reasserted all the allegations levelled in the complaint and in addition to it she has also filed 3 documents which are Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3. Ex.C-1 is the copy of cheque paid by opposite party no. 2 and received by the Ld. Counsel of the complainant on 13.8.2014, Ex.C-2 is the copy of passbook and Ex.C-3 is the complaint made to the opposite party no. 1 on 13.5.2014.
Similarly, to substantiate his case the opposite party no. 1 have filed the affidavit of Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Ombir Singh in which the deponent has reasserted the facts which were mentioned in the reply of opposite party no. 1 and in addition to it opposite party no.1 have also filed two other documents which are Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2. Ex.R-1 is the Account Ledger Inquiry in which it is shown that on 26.4.2014 an amount of Rs.5,000/- have been debited from the account of the complainant and Ex.R-2 is the copy of transaction in question which shows that amount to the tune of Rs.5,000/- have been withdrawn.
After adducing evidence the complainant also filed written arguments and Ld. Counsel of both the parties argued at length. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party no. 1 have totally failed to provide the needy and sufficient services to the complainant. When the complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party no. 1 on 13.5.2014 then complaint was not represented to the opposite party no. 2 as the opposite party no. 1 should have done. Neither they provided the required services nor lended a helping hand to solve the problem of the complainant instead of solving the problem of unsuccessful transaction on 26.4.2014, the opposite party no. 1 have
-4-
not given any satisfactory reply and further without verifying told that the transaction is complete and insisted that he has rightly debited the amount in question from her account. However, when the complaint was filed before this Forum it came to light that the transaction was not complete and so on the very first date the opposite party no. 2 have deposited the amount in question to the complainant. Hence opposite party no. 2 has provided the required and needy services but opposite party no. 1 have not even bothered to represent the case and complaint of the complainant to opposite party no. 1. Hence they are negligent in providing the necessary services to his consumer.
On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel of opposite party no. 1 have argued that they have nothing to do with the present complaint and written arguments. They have asserted that the transaction was successful and that is why the amount in question was debited from the account of the complainant. But they are silent about the complaint lodged by the complainant with them on 13.5.2014 and they have not been able to give satisfactory reply why their case/complaint was not represented by opposite party no. 1 with opposite party no. 2 through their Central Office.
Resultantly this Forum is of the view that complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 is exonerated from the allegations levelled against him. The complainant have been able to prove that opposite party no. 1 was negligent and has not provided sufficient services in getting the amount refunded even when the transaction was not successful. Opposite party no.1 have failed to provide the sufficient services to the complainant. So the opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2100 to the complainant for deficiency in services and Rs.1100/- as
-5-
litigation expenses to the complainant. The above all directions are to be complied within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite party no.1 will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.2100/-. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room. This order of the Forum is running into 5 pages and each page of this order has been signed by this Forum.
Announced on:16.02.2015 (JAGBIR SINGH)
President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
(KHUSHWINDER KAUR)
Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
(R. S. DHARIWAL)
Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
