DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/375 of 21.5.2010 Decided on: 30.8.2010 Yash Pal Singh son of Sh.Mehar Singh resident of House No.46,Street No.2, Sidhu Colony, near Gurudwara Sahib,Bhadson Road, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, Bhadson Road Branch, Patiala through its Branch Manager. 2. The State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its General Manager. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate For opposite party No.1: Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate For opposite party No.2: Sh.Anand Puri,Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Yash Pal Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant is having his account No.298500-0300088764 with the opposite party no.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank, Bhadson Road Branch, Patiala. That the complainant is also availing the ATM facilities maintained by the opposite party No.2-State Bank of Patiala, against ATM Code No.3250. That on 30.1.2010 the complainant availed the aforesaid ATM facility against the aforesaid ATM for withdrawing the amount of Rs.8700/- but the ATM failed to response the instructions of the complainant. That the complainant also lodged a complaint in this regard at Free Toll No.ISW-180-2222-24735425. That apart from lodging the aforesaid complaint, the complainant also brought to the notice of the opposite parties about the non availability of ATM facilities on 30.1.2010. That when after some days, the complainant approached to the opposite party no.1 for the completion of his pass book dealing with the aforesaid account of the complainant and then an mount of Rs.8720/- was shown deducted from the account of the complainant. That when the complainant brought to the notice of the concerned official of the opposite parties about the non availability of ATM facility on 30.1.2010 and the said official of the opposite parties assured the complainant that necessary correction in the account by crediting the amount of Rs.8720/- in the account of the complainant will be made after some time. That since 30.1.2010 the complainant has been visiting the opposite party no.1 for effecting the necessary correction in the account of the complainant as per assurance of the officials of the opposite party no.1 but nothing has been done so far which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1. That the aforesaid A.T.M. is under the direct control of the opposite party no.2 and has been charging for providing better facilities but in the present case, the opposite party no.2 has failed to provide better service as the ATM in question failed to response the instruction of the complainant and thus it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.That the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant without any fault on his part and thus the complainant is entitled to special damages to the tune of Rs.50000/- and the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed separate written replies contesting the claim of the complainant. 4. In the written reply filed by opposite party no.1 it is alleged that as per the record of the opposite party, the entry regarding the withdrawal of amount is showing successful. That after the withdrawal of the amount, a confirmation regarding the operation of the ATM, receipt was also issued through the said ATM machine. That when the complainant approached to the opposite party, the complainant was satisfied after obtaining the report from the Head office that his entry is shown to be successful. The entry of the complainant regarding the withdrawal of the amount is shown to be successful and the complainant has already been informed accordingly. It is wrong that the complainant has been visiting to the office of opposite party for correction in the account. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The account has been rightly debited. The complainant is not entitled for any damages. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and has prayed that complaint be dismissed. 5. In the written reply filed by opposite party no.2 it is admitted that the complainant availed the ATM facility on 30.1.2010.It is totally wrong that ATM failed to response the instructions of the complainant. In fact the complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.8700/- through his ATM card, from the ATM installed at District Courts,Patiala.On making of the complaint by the complainant, with the opposite party no.2, the matter was thoroughly enquired by the opposite party no.2 and AGM-1(P) vide its letter No.1844 dated 4.6.2010 forwarded the matter to Channel Manager, IT Centre,SBOP,Zonal Office, Patiala for examination of the matter, and vide letter No.ZOP/ITC/1921 dated 14.6.2010, Chief Manager, Administration, Zonal Office, Patiala, written to AGM-1, SBOP,Leela Bhawan, Patiala vide which the data was verified from Web and as per the JP Log, transaction of the relevant date in respect of the said ATM was found successful. Further more Link Office of SBOP,Mumbai, reported vide its letter dated 16.2.2010 that on 30.1.2010 the operation of ATM card No.SIAN 50070601 was found successful and no excess amount was found in the chest of ATM on 30.1.2010 and a letter dated 18.2.2010 was written by Manager SBOP, District Courts, Patiala to Manager SBOP Link Office Mumbai. As per the J.R.Roll of dated 30.1.2010 of the concerned ATM an amount of Rs.8700/- shown to have been withdrawn through ATM card No.SIAN 50070601 and in the response code it is shown as “000” and as per the ATM Manual, the transaction is successful. That on receiving the complaint from the complainant, the matter was enquired into by the opposite party no.2, and it has been found that the transaction so made by the complainant was successful. That the said ATM is under the control of the opposite party no.2. It is wrong that the opposite party no.2 has failed to provide better service. The opposite party no.2 is providing better services to the satisfaction of its customers. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party no.2. The complainant has not suffered from any mental tension, agony, harassment as alleged. The complainant is not entitled to any damages. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and has prayed that complaint be dismissed. 6. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the complainant. No evidence of the complainant was present. The complainant was granted last opportunity for today to produce his entire evidence. But inspite of the last opportunity the complainant has not bothered to step in the witness box in support of his case. The learned counsel for the complainant requested for another adjournment which was declined and evidence of the complainant was closed. 7. The perusal of the record shows that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to prove if there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 8. In the result we hold that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated.30.8.2010. President Member Member
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | , | | 
