Present:

For the complainant: In person.

For Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.

For Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Ajay Gulati, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

Sh.Mohinder Singh Brar, Member.

Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member.

Order by

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainant is having saving bank account with Opposite Party No.1 bearing account No.05111000108234. Further alleges that he was in urgent need of money and he went to Opposite Party No.2 ATM on 30.11.2018 for withdrawal of money of Rs.10,000/- and made transaction No. 1870 through his ATM Card No. 6070870511014670 out of his account No.05111000108234, but did not receive money from the ATM, but the entry of withdrawal has been made in his account without money. In this way, the complainant sent representation on 01.12.2018 to the concerned bank. Thereafter, the complainant also made a complaint through e-mail to the concerned bank but with no affect and in this regard, the complainant also deposited Rs.590/- as charges against receipt. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the office of Opposite Parties, but to no affect  and hence there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. To make the payment of Rs.10,000/- as the complainant could not receive the said payment on 30.11.2018 through transaction No. 1`870, due to technical fault of ATM of Opposite Party No.2 and also direct the Opposite Parties  to pay Rs.20,000/-   as compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment and
2. Any other relief which this Commission  may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.          

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.06.2019 

3.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written  reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that no deficient service has been rendered by the Opposite Party No.2; that the complainant neither lodged any written complaint nor reported the alleged dispute to the officials of Opposite Party No.2 bank. The alleged disputed transaction pertains to dated 30.11.2018 and now it is beyond the control of Opposite Party No.2 bank to verify and investigate into the allegations of the complainant in the absence of record and CCTV footage of the said particular day i.e. 30.11.2018 because the bank and is ATM service provider retains record only for the post transaction of 3 months only and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence copy of passbook Ex.C1, affidavit Ex.C2 and copies of other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 and   closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party  No.2 tendered into evidence the  affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Mahoviya, Chief Manager Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

6.       We have heard the complainant and  ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2  and also gone through the evidence produced on record. 

7.       The Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and  contended that  he is having saving bank account with Opposite Party No.1 bearing account No.05111000108234. Further alleges that he was in urgent need of money and he went to Opposite Party No.2 ATM on 30.11.2018 for withdrawal of money of Rs.10,000/- and made transaction No. 1870 through his ATM Card No. 6070870511014670 out of his account No.05111000108234, but did not receive money from the ATM, but the entry of withdrawal has been made in his account without money. In this way, the complainant sent representation on 01.12.2018 to the concerned bank. Thereafter, the complainant also made a complaint through e-mail to the concerned bank but with no affect and in this regard, the complainant also deposited Rs.590/- as charges against receipt. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the office of Opposite Parties, but to no affect  and hence there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for  Opposite Party No.2 has    repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant  on the ground that  no deficient service has been rendered by the Opposite Party No.2; that the complainant neither lodged any written complaint nor reported the alleged dispute to the officials of Opposite Party No.2 bank. The alleged disputed transaction pertains to dated 30.11.2018 and now it is beyond the control of Opposite Party No.2 bank to verify and investigate into the allegations of the complainant in the absence of record and CCTV footage of the said particular day i.e. 30.11.2018 because the bank and is ATM service provider retains record only for the post transaction of 3 months only and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. 

9.       But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Party No.2 bank.  It is not disputed that the complainant went to Opposite Party No.2 ATM on 30.11.2018 for withdrawal of money of Rs.10,000/- and made transaction No. 1870 through his ATM Card No. 6070870511014670 out of his account No.05111000108234, but did not receive money from the ATM, but the entry of withdrawal has been made in his account without money. In this way, the complainant sent representation on 01.12.2018 to the concerned bank. Thereafter, the complainant also made a complaint through e-mail to the concerned bank but with no affect. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant has placed on record the copy of e-mail sent to the Opposite Parties regarding the redressal of his grievances on 01.12.2018 i.e. on the very next date, copy of said e-mail is Ex.C3. Not only this, the complainant again reminded the Opposite Parties bank in this regard vide letter Ex.C4. Further, the complainant also lodged a complaint with the Opposite Parties and for this purpose, the complainant also deposited Rs.590/- towards fee, so that he could receive the money which was wrongly and illegally deducted from his saving bank account. Hence, the complainant is running piller to post for the redressal of his grievances, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2 has very negligently written in its reply that      the complainant neither lodged any written complaint nor reported the alleged dispute to the officials of Opposite Party No.2 bank. But on the  face of it, the complainant has produced the copies of e-mail and letters Ex.C1, Ex.C3 and Ex.C5 vide which he has not only requested the Opposite Parties, but also deposited the amount of Rs.590/- towards fee, so that the matter could be solved. As per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and as per the Banking Rules, the complainant has made the complaint with the Opposite Parties, within 24 hours from the date of said occurrence,  but till date, none of the Opposite Parties bothered to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant, despite lapse of more than 3 years. Rather Opposite Party No.1-Punjab and Sind bank did not bother to defend its case despite service and chose to remain exparte.  As mentioned above, the complainant within 24 yours i.e. on 01.12.2018 from the date of occurrence (30.11.2018) lodged the complaint in writing with Opposite Parties banks and deposited the charges amounting to Rs.590/- vide receipt Ex.C5 and as per the new guidelines of 2019 in continuation of its previous letter of July, 2011 of Reserve Bank of India bearing.RBI/2019-20/6, DPSS.CO.PD No.629/02.01.014/2019-20, dated  September 20, 2019, under the subject: Harmonisation of Turn Around Time (TAT) and customer compensation for failed transactions using authorised Payment Systems, banks have been mandated to resolve customer complaints by re-crediting the customer’s account within 5 working days from the date of complaint.  Further, the RBI guideline effective from September, 2019, say that banks have to pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day for delays in re-crediting the amount beyond 5 working days from the date of receipt of complaint for failed ATM transactions or on account of  Customer’s account debited but cash not dispensed. The relevant para of the letter issued by Reserve Bank of India is reproduced as under:-

Harmonisation of Turn Around Time (TAT) and customer compensation for
failed transactions using authorised Payment Systems

But in the instant case, more than 3 years have elapsed, but the Opposite Parties did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant and at last, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint for the redressal of his grievance. Hence, we hold that there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

10.     Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) in the account of the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of  filing the present complaint i.e. 01.05.2019 till its actual realisation. Both the Opposite Parties are also jointly and severally directed to pay lump-sum compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant  shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

11.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not  appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 05.01.2022.