Haryana

Karnal

75/2013

Jagdish Yadav S/o Sita Ram Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

punjab National Bank., Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Goel

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.75 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 07.02.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 18.09.2015

 

Jagdish Yadav son of late Shri Sita Ram Yadav resident of Balaji Overseas villag Sangholi tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra now residing at Aroma Agro Ice Pvt.Ltd. GT Road, Gharaunda vi9llage Garhi Multan near Chotala Petrol Pump, Karnal.

                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

 1.Punjab National Bank, Branch at Pehowa district Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

 

2.Punjab National Bank, near Bus stand, GT Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Sh.Pardeep Goyal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986, on the averments that he is consumer of the Opposite Parties ( in short OPs) having account No.09817000143151667.  ATM card was also issued by the OP no.1 in respect of the said account.  On 17.10. 2012, he alongwith  his son Mithlesh Kumar visited the ATM   of OP no.2 and inserted  his card for withdrawal of Rs.10000/-.  After giving pass word some movement came in the ATM, but no currency came out. Then he again inserted card and applied for withdrawal of Rs.10000/- and   got amount of Rs.10000/- from the machine but the amount of Rs.20000/- was shown to  have been  deducted from his account.  Immediately, he reported the matter to OP no.2, who asked him to get  the complaint registered through toll free number.  Accordingly, he got registered his complaint through Toll-free number.   He was assured that matter would be investigated, but nothing was done. Then, he again contacted the Toll free number and he was told to send complaint through E-mail.    On 29.11.2012 the OP no.1 sent an E-mail about the complaint,  but despite that no action was taken.  On 10.12.2012, he sent E-mail and requested for refund of Rs.10, 000/- , but no heed was paid to his request.  The Ops continued to postpone the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to do anything. Thus, complainant was cheated due to some technical error in the ATM machine.  The Ops did not bother to  look into the  matter and thus there was deficiency in services on the part of Ops on account of which he suffered mental agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause  of action and loucs standi to  file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is false, frivolous and grossly misconceived; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain  and decide the present complaint and  that there was neither deficiency nor unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that transactions made by the complainant at ATM  D1  vide transaction No.2333  dated 17.10.2012 at 13: 14 and at D5  vide transaction No.5564 dated 17.10.2012 at 13:02 were successful as was clear from J.P.Roll. ATMs D1 and D5 have been  installed for service of card holders and  to avoid delay and inconvenience to the customers. It has further been averred that complainant alongwith his son came to the bank and his son told that he withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/- from ATM D1 but did not receive any  money from the  ATM D5.  Thereafter, J.P.Roll pertaining to the D5 was checked and it was found that transaction was successful. The complainant was also explained that he  could get CCTV Footage after depositing the required amount. It has also been pleaded that OP no.2 called ATM Engineer after receiving the complaint on 14.1.2013 and sought report of transaction No.5564 dated 17.10.2012 pertaining to ATM D1 and engineer submitted his report dated 17.1.2013 that transaction was successful and no error was found in the in the J.P.Roll. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

 

3.                 In the evidence of complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C2, affidavit of his son Mithlesh Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C8.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in the evidence of Ops, affidavit of Sh. Hardev Singh, authorized signatory Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                 The complainant has alleged that on 17.10.2012 he alongwith his son Mitlesh Kumar visited ATM of OP no.2 and inserted his ATM card for withdrawal of Rs.10000/-, but after giving password, no currency came out. Then, he again inserted the card , applied  password and withdrew the amount of Rs.10,000/- ,but an amount of Rs.20,000/- was shown to have been deducted from his account.

 

7.                 On the other hand Ops have submitted that ATM D1 and D5 have been installed for service of card holders.  The complainant withdrew an amount of Rs.10,000/-  from ATM D5 at 13:02  vide  transaction No.5564 dated 17.10.2012 and he also withdrew  an amount of Rs.10,000/- from ATM D1 vide transaction No.2333 dated 17.10.2012 at 13:14 and both the transactions were successful as per J.P.Roll.

 

8.                 Copy of J.P.Roll Ex.O3 shows that complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.10,000/-  from ATM D1 on 17.10.2012 at 13:02 and the balance amount in his account was shown as Rs.6747/-. This evidence read with  the entries of the pass book, copy of which is Ex.C3 shows  that on 17.10.2012, complainant had  a balance of Rs.26747/- in his account, he had made two transactions of Rs.10,000/-each and the balance remained Rs.6747/-. Thus, it is emphatically clear that first transaction  regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- must have been made by the complainant before  13:2 and not after  that. The transaction at 13:02 was successful as is evident from Ex.O3. Therefore, there could  be no question of withdrawal of any amount from the ATM machine at 13:14.Thus, documentary evidence falsifies the version put forth by the OPs in the written statement.

 

9.                 During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the OPs raised a new plea by producing customer accounts enquiry report that one transaction of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-  by the complainant  from  ATM D1 was successful at 13:14 and another transaction regarding withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-  from D5 was successful at 13:16:34. He further contended that difference of time may taken place while transferring the entries from one system to another system.  On the basis of Customer Account Enquiry report, he laid emphasis on the contention that both the transactions were successful and there was no technical defect in any of the ATM Machines of the Ops.

 

10.               The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Ops is beyond the pleadings and as such cannot be considered.  Moreover, the plea raised during course of argument runs contrary to the plea put forth in the written statement. The learned counsel for the Ops could  not brining to the notice of this Forum any authentic material on the basis of which it can be accepted that there could be difference of time regarding any transaction recorded in the ATM machine and online financial  transaction interface.  When, as per record, of ATM machine, last transaction made by the complainant for withdrawal of  Rs.10,000/- was  took place,  leaving the balance in his account as Rs.6747/- , it  cannot be believed that first transaction was made by the complainant at 13:14 and second at 13:16:34. Therefore, the argument  advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs cannot be accepted being devoid of force.

 

11.               It is worth while to add that when complainant had lodged complaint immediately after getting information that the amount of Rs.10,000/-was wrongly deducted from his account, Ops could well maintain a record of CC TV Footage of the ATM Machines and produce the same to substantiate plea put forth by them, but no such record was  preserved for the reasons best known to them. Thus, best available evidence   has also been withheld by the OPs, therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them.

 

12.               On the basis of aforestated facts and circumstances, we  arrive at the conclusion that only one transaction made by the complainant regarding withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10000/- on 17.10.2012 at 13:2 was successful. Thus, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was wrongly debited from his account  in respect  of some other transaction which was allegedly made before 13:02 on that day.

 

13.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith  bank rate  interest from the date of  debiting the same from the account of the complainant i.e. 17.10.2012, till its actual payment. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of

 

receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:18.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.Pardeep Goyal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.K.Vohra Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:18.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.